Al Conyers, Al Franken, Roy Moore, Bill O'Riley, Matt Lauer,Charlie Rose...and now, Garrison Keillor....
The list of powerful men fired or under pressure to quit because of "sexual misconduct" is growing by the minute, no second.
Women, who often feel that they have long struggled to gain equality with men in politics, business and the workplace, have found a new weapon. It is a weapon that requires no proof, allows no due process and requires only a simple accusation from a woman.
NBC recently announced that they have fired Matt Lauer, twenty-year host of the Today Show for "inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace." Lauer was the highest paid anchor on TV, earning more than $20 million per year. He also had the most longevity of any current TV anchor.
NBC issued a statement that offered no proof of misbehavior, only a single accusation by a woman at the network. While NBC initially said there had been no other complaints, they assumed that this was not an isolated incident. In short, a woman complained, we believe her, and you are hereby fired. That simple.
Then, Garrison Keillor (of all people) was fired by Minnesota Public Radio where he'd worked since 1969. Keillor's crime? He patted a female on the back to console her and her shirt was open and his hand touched her bare back! Keillor, by the way, is 75.
Women should not be subject to harassment in the workplace. Period. However, men should not be vulnerable to unproven, unsubstantiated charges without due process in which the charges are validated. As a society, we have gone over the top in trying to protect a class of people by giving them a super-protective status. Look at a woman wrong, or she claims you did, and you loose your job, your career, your life. Nothing needs to be proven.
What needs to happen? There are only two options. One, lawmakers on the state or federal level need to pass legislation that provides anyone accused of "sexual misbehavior" a means of due process: it isn't enough just to accuse. The accusations must be validated or proven, even if we don't hold the burden of proof to to "proof beyond reasonable doubt." There should at least be the burden of proof "by a preponderance of evidence" standard. Of course, that won't happen because women, as a class, enjoy super-protected status in our society. Politicians fear them more than anyone or anything else. The elite media cater to them more than anyone or anything else.
A troubling proponent of this trend is the lack of definition of what constitutes "sexual harassment" or "improper conduct." In the federal law, as well as in most state statutes, the crime is specified and defined. Before a man can be convicted of sexual harassment, he must be guilty of a, b, or c. But in the extra-legal, non-judiciary process of punishing men outside the courtroom, there are no standards. Guilt is whatever you want it to be. It's whatever a woman thinks it should be. And there is absolutely no defense. Most men don't even bother to hire an attorney. As Keillor said, "I'm just not interested in fighting this."
What is most troubling about this trend is the assumption of guilt for anything that makes a woman feel uncomfortable. If a man asks a woman for a date and she declines, it is sexual harassment. If a man compliments a woman, it is improper behavior. There doesn't need to be a pattern, an overt act--it can be anything the woman says it is. And she will always be taken at face value, regardless of the facts, the proof, the pattern....it doesn't matter. We have created a whole new precedent in American quasi-jurisprudence, an extra-judicial method of indicting, condemning and punishing men without a trial.
The second possibility would be for the accused men to mount lawsuits against (a) their accusers or (b) their employer who fired them without any due process or fairness. Without any chance to prove that the charges may not have been true or valid. Here again, this would probably not be practical because the courts have also bought into the "we must protect these delicate, mistreated creatures at all costs."
It is open season on men. If you want to change the power structure, you now have an easy method: accuse a man of sexual misconduct in the workplace. It always works and it is never subjected to any real scrutiny. When is the last time you heard of a man being accused after which the man was found to be innocent? It never happens. Men are 100 percent guilty, every time, regardless of the lack of proof. The assumption is "You are guilty because you are a man and because you have been accused."
No man is safe. And it's not just congressmen, TV anchors and nationally prominent men. It's men in the office where you work, it's pastors in local churches, it's doctors, plumbers and teachers. If a woman in your workplace wants you out, and you are a man, she now has a 100 percent effective method of eliminating you! Of course, women never use this device with ulterior motives.
I would not suggest that all of the men accused are innocent. It's just that they don't enjoy the assumption of innocence until there is some degree of validation.
We
have created a whole new precedent in American quasi-jurisprudence, an
extra-judicial method of indicting, condemning and punishing men without a trial and with the only evidence being an unsubstantiated accusation: THE ASSUMPTION OF GUILT, against which men have absolutely no defense.
No man in America is safe.
As politicians began to realize that the world was running out of water, they introduced legislation that would limit toilets to using no more than 1.3 liters of water per flush.
Jimmy Carter had the honor of signing this commandment. The new water-saving toilet will forever be known as the "Jimmy John."
The final Confederate charge at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863 was delegated to troops under Gen. George Pickett. One of the brigade commanders was Maj. Gen. Lewis Armistead.
Armistead had been born in North Carolina but raised in Virginia. He considered himself a Virginian.
Armistead's five uncles had fought in the War of 1812. One of them, Major George Armistead, was commander of Fort William McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore. It was during this battle that Francis Scoot Key wrote "The Star Spangled Banner," which became the national anthem.
On July 3, 1863, at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, Lewis Armistead took his position in front of his brigade, forming for the attack on the Union center on Cemetery Ridge. For two hours his men had endured nearly constant bombardment from Union cannon. They had mostly stretched themselves on the ground in the woods and waited for the order to move forward. General James Longstreet, in command of the attack, seemed unwilling to give the order.
Finally, the order came and Armistead held his had above his head and shouted to his 5,000 men: "For your homes, for your wives, for our sweethearts....for Virginia!" And the voices behind him thundered, "For Virginia!"
Armistead's brigade moved toward the center of the Union line, toward a small copse of trees which was his objective. His brigade endured brutal shelling from the Union cannon. Coming closer to the center of the enemy's line, his men then underwent savage rifle fire, leaving large holes in his lines. His men reached out their arms, much as they would do on the parade ground, and dressed their lines--closing up the gaps made by the fallen dead and wounded--and moved forward up the hill.
Reaching the stone wall where the Union line had formed, Gen. Armistead removed his black hat, placed it on the top of his sword and waved it above his head as a rallying point. "Follow me!" he yelled and stepped over the wall, reaching what historians call "the high water mark of the Confederacy."
Just after crossing the wall, Armistead was shot three times. He received wounds just below the knee and in his arm. Union Capain Henry Bingham assisted Armistead and received his personal effects, including a Bible. Armistead asked that the Bible be presented to the wife of his old friend, Union Major General Winfield Scott Hancock.
General Armistead's wounds were not thought to be mortal. He was taken to a Union field hospital at a nearby farm and attended by a Union surgeon. Two days later, however, Armistead died, probably of infection.
He was buried at the St. Paul Cemetery in Baltimore, next to his uncle, Lt. General George Armistead, the former commander of Fort William McHenry during the War of 1812.
Yes, of course, the War Between the States was about slavery, among other things.
The larger issue was sectionalism. The United States by 1860 was divided into 3 distinct sections: the industrial North, the agrarian South, and the expanding West.
SECTIONALISM: Each section of the nation had very different lifestyles, economies, political viewpoints and needs. The economic system of the agricultural South depended on slavery. The North's economy no longer did.
THE TARIFF: The North, which exported goods, wanted a protective tariff on imported goods to protect its manufacturing or industrial base from foreign competition. The South, which depended largely on imported goods, hated the tariff. As far back as 1828, the Congress passed a high tariff to protect goods manufactured by Northern industries. The South hated it so much they called it "the Tariff of Abominations." This conflict continued until the civil war broke out in 1861.
STATE'S RIGHTS: The argument was really the political argument that could not be solved. The southern states had always, since before the Constitution was ratified, believed that each state was sovereign and entitled ultimately to set its own political course. The South viewed the Union as a subordinate thing--agreed upon voluntarily in Philadelphia by the various sovereign states, which could, when necessary nullify unwarranted acts of the national government at will. The North, by contrast, felt that the Union was sacred, ultimate, the final authority in the nation. These opposing viewpoints came so severe that they could only be decided at terrible places like Gettysburg and Antietam.
Thus, the 3 major issues that caused the War were:
1. Sectionalism
2. The Tarrif
3. Conflict over state sovereignty vs. national soverignty
These were the three sticks of dynamite in the powder keg. The West was the catalyst that prevented delay in finding a peaceful solution. New territories were being settled and were applying for statehood. The balance between free states and slave states was carefully maintained until 1850. Then Kansas and Nebraska exploded into what really became the real "civil war," as slaveholders and opponents of slavery fought and killed each other there. So Kansas and Nebraska lit the fuse.
The event that blew the lid off was the unlikely election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln was a dark horse Republican candidate without a chance of winning the presidency. Except for two things. The Democrats chose Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois as their candidate and Douglas was unacceptable to the southern states. So southern delegates walked out of the Democratic convention and selected John C. Beckenridge to run as a "Southern Democrat." Thus, the Democrats had their vote divided two ways. Finally, there was a fourth candidate, John Bell of Tennessee, who voiced no clear stand on the urgent issues of his day, declaring himself only to be "for the constitution and the union."
Come election day 1860, the electoral vote was splintered like a barn door. Douglas won 12 electoral votes, Breckenridge got 72, Bell 39, and Lincoln 180. The popular vote was just as scattered: Lincoln had 39.8 percent. Breckenridge had 18.1 percent. Douglas had only 29.5%, while Bell received 12.6%. The most divided election in American history.
And Lincoln won without carrying a single southern state. If you look at the election on a map, there is a line running along the southern boundaries of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Lincoln did not carry a single state south of that line.
When it was announced that Lincoln was the new president, the South exploded. Legislatures were called into special sessions and southern states began to secede. This was, I believe, irrational and suicidal; nevertheless, this is what they did.
So, was the war about slavery? Yes, of course it was. And it was also about state's rights, the tarrif, balance of power in the new western states--all the clouds forming under the horizon of intense sectionalism.
I would contend that the causes of the war were different from the course of the war. After Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South and "put down the rebellion," the course of the war became to protect the homeland. Each southern state's objective became, not the preservation of slavery, but keeping the invading federal armies out of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia....
Go to any battle line in the Confederate army and ask the common soldier, "Why are you fighting?" I doubt you would get anyone to say, "Why, I'm fighting to preserve slavery." No, sir. Here is what you would get: "I'm fighting for my home." Or, "I'm fighting for my state." Or, "I'm fighting to protect my rights." Perhaps, "I'm fighting to preserve our way of life." Or, as one Alabamian put it when a Union soldier asked him why he was fighting: "I'm fightin' because you are down here."
Listen to General Lewis Armistead, one of Pickett's Brigade Commanders at Gettysburg. In the minutes before the fateful charge Armistead shouted to the 5,000 Virginians in his command: "For your homes, for your wives, for your sweethearts....For Virginia!" And the chorus swelled behind him in reply, "For Virginia!"
No one answered "For slavery!"
Virginia's House of Delegates (legislature) has again violated the First Amendment by refusing to allow the Sons of Confederate Veterans to have a state license plate.
For years, the non-profit, tax exempt educational and historical group has had custom license plates sold in the Old Dominion. Then, after fierce debate, the House of Delegates said, no more. They have refused to allow these plates.
This comes after a federal judge had earlier ruled that if you allow one group to have custom license plates, you must allow all groups to have one. For example, you can't allow public school teachers to have a plate but deny one to NRA members. You can't allow a plate for the NAACP but deny one to the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).
Constitutional attorney John Whitehead, the founder of the Rutherford Institute, makes this point very clearly on his website. Here is the link for those who want to read Mr. Whitehead's piece:
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/censoring_the_confederate_flag_is_unconstitutional
Whitehead makes the point that it is controversial or unpopular speech that needs constitutional protection. And that you cannot censor speech just because it is unpopular or controversial. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time and again.
But, in the typical over-reaction to all things that could be considered controversial or racist or "insensitive," the Virginia lawmaking body decided to lash out at the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The federal courts, of course, will step in and put them in their place.
But it just shows you how crazy and hyper-sensitive our PC world has become.
"WHITE HOLIDAY"
I'm dreaming of a white holiday
With every hol-i-day card I write.
Where the tree tops glisten
And children listen to hear sleigh bells in the snow.
I'm dreaming of a white holiday
With every holiday card I write
May your days be merry and bright--
And may all your hol-i-days be white.
______
Seems we're at the breaking apart stage of our society where you can't even mention Christmas in public any more. Everything is a 'holiday.' Holiday cards, holiday trees, holiday greetings, holiday turkeys....and the ultra-radical "winter holiday" celebrated by the government ("public") schools.
I admit it's gotten better in the last 5 years. It got really crazy about 5 years ago with department stores trying to sell "holiday trees" and "holiday greeting cards." Store greeters were instructed to avoid the traditional "Merry Christmas" in favor of the bland and stupid "happy holiday."
My reply was always, "Which holiday are you referring to?"
Then, I'd give a good hearty "Merry Christmas!" loud enough for everyone nearby to hear. December 25 on my calendar still reads "Christmas" and it is a federal holiday (though we don't know for how much longer if the radicals have their way).
So when someone wishes you a "white holiday," remember that most holidays are not going to be white. I've never seen a white Fourth of July where I live!
Thankfully, I'm seeing more traditional Christmas cards in stores than I saw a few years ago. Many department stores now have "Christmas sales." Even if you detest the ultra-commericalization of the season, it's better than "Winter sales" or "white holiday sales."
So from all of us here at the Center for Useless Social Statistics (CUSS) - MERRY CHRISTMAS!
TOP 10 REASONS WHY MILEY CRIES:
10) She is a spoiled brat.
(9) She is a sexist who hates men with power.
(8) She really identified with Hillary.
(7) She kinda digs the brown pants suits!
(6) She's a non-conformist or rebel.
(5) Her Hollywood friends told her to.
(4) She's a little goofy to start with.
(3) She always gets her way (almost).
(2) Not getting her way makes her spinny headed.
(1) Hillary had promised her a cabinet position.
Miley Cyrus is crying tonight. See Miley cry. Cry, Miley, cry!
Donald Trump has announced most of his cabinet and while the choices are not all perfect, they represent such an improvement over the atrocities of the Obama left that it makes Miley cry! There is much rejoicing in America as Miley cries.
Hollywood has failed! While the left wingers spewed forth their venom and thought they had once again beguiled America, the common citizens of America have spoken. Hollywood has lost its hold. "Oh, foolish Americans, who hath beguiled you...?" Well, they are not beguiled any longer! It is no wonder that Miley cries. Cry, Miley, cry!
I must point out of course, as NPR has been doing since the election, that Trump did not win the popular vote. In fact, Hillary got about 2 million more popular votes than did Donald J. Trump. I suppose we should, in fairness, abolish the electoral college retroactively. At least, those individual electors who pledged to cast their votes according to the discretion of the American voters should now be free to dishonor their sacred duty--because they do not agree with the election's outcome.
But you see, Miley, if you do not believe now that the electoral college is a good idea, you are addressing the wrong audience. The audience you should address is made up of the following Esquires: James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton...., etc. In their wisdom, they set up the American electoral process in 1787 (signed September 17, 1787). They gave the final power to elect the President to a group of electors chosen by the individual states. They withheld that power from the popular vote and they did it after careful and compromised negotiation. It was James Madison who said, "Asking the common man to choose a president is like asking a blind man to choose colors."
Donald Trump is not the first president who failed to get a majority of the popular vote. It has happened 5 times in American history. Presidents who did not get the majority of the popular vote are: John Quincy Adams (1824); Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); William Henry Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000) and Donald Trump (2016).
It was Thomas Jefferson who enjoined us that governments should not be changed "for light and transient causes." Perhaps we should not rush to dismantle the electoral college system just because Miley's candidate is not going to sleep in the White House.
When we ASSUME things to be true, even when they are not, we get into logical quagmires.
An example? When we ASSUME that the War Between the States was strictly a war about slavery, nothing else.
Or when we ASSUME that the South fought to preserve slavery. Or that the Confederate flag is racist.
Let's digest that terrible word ASSUME.
ASS-U-ME.
When we ASSUME, it makes an ASS out of you, and an ASS out of me.
ASS-U-ME.
A very bad thing.
If you have not heard Shelby Foote, the noted writer, comment on the Confederate flag, you owe it to yourself to listen to him for 2 minutes. Here is a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9J8P6WfS7w
Foote correctly relates that the Confederate flag was never about racism. He says the Confederacy respected law and order above all else.
This may be the most interesting and most accurate brief discussion about the misunderstandings of the flag that I have ever heard.
Perhaps I have been wrong. Maybe there is justice, after all. Jeff Sessions is going to be nominated as Attorney General of the United States!
Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are out. There will be a housecleaning followed by a fumigation at the Department of Justice! Justice will no longer be a politically correct, anti-police, progressive-Democrat machine. It will be what it was before Obama; what it is supposed to be: a federal agency that enforces law uniformly and fairly without regard to race, creed or color.
Miley Cyrus will just have to cry. See Miley cry! Cry, Miley! Left wingers will just have to move to Canada. (Canada doesn't want them, by the way)!
Thanks to Americans who are sick and tired of President Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and that bunch of outlaws, sanity rules again. America voted! And Jeff Sessions (What a perfect choice!) will replace Loretta Lynch as the Attorney General of the United States! Thank you, Lord.
"As Gen. Forrest would say, 'Talk is cheap.'"
It is said that the ghost of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest rides around the haunted battlefields of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky by night. Some have reported the gray caped spirit of Gen. John Bell Hood in the woods around Chickamauga Creek.
Left wingers have the right to criticize the Confederacy and its politics. But I'd like to see one of them carry on a conversation with Hood or Forrest regarding the honor of Confederate soldiers. I'd like to see one of them dishonor the Confederate flag in the presence of these men. That would truly be a courageous act.
Frankly, I don't think our liberal friends have the stomach for such conversation.
John Bell Hood commanded the Army of Tennessee. He fought at Gettysburg where he permanently lost the use of his left arm in battle. Being transferred to the western front, Hood launched a massive attack into a gap in Union lines at the Battle of Chickamauga and had his right leg blown off. In spite of these permanent and hideous wounds, Hood continued to fight for most of the remainder of the war. You would not wish to argue character with General Hood.
Neither will wise men speak ill of the Southern spirit in the presence of Gen. Forrest. Bedford was in his share of tough fights, before and after the war. In 1841, Forrest's uncle was killed by several of the Matlock brothers in Hernando, Mississippi. Bedford shot two of them with his two-shot pistol and wounded two more in a knife fight. He stood 6 feet, 2 inches tall and weighed 210 pounds. It is estimated that during the war Bedford personally killed 30 enemy soldiers. He was known as a hard rider and fierce swordsman. At the Battle of Fallen Timbers he charged a large group of enemy soldiers only to realize too late that his men had abandoned the charge to leave Forrest intermingling with the enemy alone. Realizing his men were not with him, Forrest used his Colt and sabre to clear the road of enemy troops and galloped back to his own men. A Union soldier attempted to dismount Forrest by pulling him off his horse. Forrest yanked the man across the saddle in front of him, charged back to his own lines, then dropped the enemy soldier to the ground with a heavy thud. During this escapade, Forrest was shot in the back at point blank range with a musket. A surgeon removed the ball without the benefit of anesthesia.
At Brice's Cross Roads, Forrest commanded 500 troops when he encountered a Union force of 8,500 troops under Brig. Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis. Forrest charged the northern troops and drove them from the field, having his horse shot from under him in the fight. Biographers state that Forrest had 15 horses shot from under him during the war. A conversation about the inadequacies of southern virtue is one that I would not wish to have with Mr. Forrest.
So when the sissy left wingers speak of kicking the a--es of Confederates, they do so only from the safety of television studios, wearing their lipstick, face powder and cheap cologne.
As Gen. Forrest would say, "Talk is cheap."
It left its Northern base and stealthily crept along the base of the mountains, out of sight, then forded the Potomac to invade Virginia in the dead of night-- turning its deadly snake-like head toward the Deep South.
We call it political correctness. It was a gradual invasion. At first, it made some sense. Offensive and hateful speech was targeted. PC speech tried to be sensitive, caring, treating all of God's children with respect. I applaud that.
Then, over the years PC got crazy. In its extremes, PC began to practice the very things that it once condemned. Whole sections of the nation were branded as racists or bigots. Emblems were criminalized. Ideas were demonized. Nothing was safe or simple any more. Restrooms for men and women aren't enough any more. The Washington Redskins Cleveland Indians have to be renamed after 100 years. Dixie isn't a PC tune, even at halftime at a southern university or high school. The entire entertainment industry has been provided with PC indoctrination (brainwashing). As far as we know, this was mostly voluntary.
The South is one of the kindest, compassionate and caring place in the world. Nobody has manners, charm, smiles and welcome mats bigger or brighter than Charleston, Atlanta, Bowling Green, or Chapel Hill.
It is always an outsider who doesn't understand the South, has never lived in the South, cannot whistle Dixie if his life depended on it--those are the folks who try to use their version of PC to indict the South on bogus charges. The South has been framed.
As a frog gigging, squirrel hunting, stump jumping, snuff dipping, log snaking, tractor pulling, turnip loving, slow drawling son of the South, I say, "Leave your PC stupidity at the Mason Dixon Line, where it belongs." Come on down to Macon or Tupelo or Mobile and get a whiff of that warm Southern breeze. Enjoy some really tolerant, sensible, compassionate, fun-loving Southern ladies and gentlemen. Listen to them say "ya'll, fixin' to," or "How ya doin', Sugah?" See them dig some crawdads and cook a fine pot of turnip greens with a turn of exquisite cornbread while you sip on real Southern sweet tea.
There's nothing to fear in the real South. I promise you, you will not see one single slave. No brutal plantations, no African Americans being tormented by people with sheets over their heads. No burning crosses, no hate filled marches in the streets, none of the imaginary stuff the PC pundits up North fantasize about. And our African-American citizens experience drastically fewer incidents of violence purpetrated by a po-lice officer than ya'll would see in places like Chicago, Gary, Indiana, Cleveland, Ohio, Baltimore, Maryland, or Newark, New Jersey.
The South is a place of friendly, enlightened people, sugar white beaches, tranquil blue waters, towering pines, carefully manicured lawns, mockingbirds, best selling authors, space engineers, iced tea, fine food, welcoming smiles, pleasant conversations and sitting on the front porch at night listening to the whip-0-wills along the hollow road.
Come visit us down heah in the South. Just leave your PC at the Mason Dixon Line. You can pick it up on your back north, if you decide it's worth going back to. Most of ya'll stay here once you see how charming and gracious the South really is. You will probably nevah go back north at all. Heck, the furtherest north I've been in decades is Nashville.
P.S. You may still see a few "confederate flags" down heah. Not hate. Culture.
The South is not a region geographically. The South is a philosophy, a set of ideas, a monolithic and perhaps even mythic way of seeing things--which the liberal mind loathes and holds in such intolerance as to be bigoted, hateful and totally inept in understanding.
The South, at least mythically and in cliche, stands for conservative culture. It is really antithetical to "progressivism" and the evils of the political Left which have poisoned America since the mid-Twentieth Century. The mythic Southerner opposes high taxation, Government invasion into individual liberty, tyranny, infringement of the right to private property, weakening of the Second Amendment, open borders, socialism, a welfare state, criminal leniency, legalization of drugs--all the things the Left endorses. Thus, the South is on the opposite magnetic pole to progressivism, liberalism, globalism and socialism.
Every political expression must find a palatable way to express itself so it appears rational, compassionate and reasonable. For, after all, it is still true in our society that government officials must get elected before they can govern. Thus, politicians must justify their philosophies, goals and agendas to the people. How do those opposed to the South go about doing this?
Of course, they look for hated institutions, ideas, actions or unreasonable historical positions--persons or movements on which to anchor their disdain. The two single ideas that ripple outward from a progressive's heart-core of disgust and repudiation are: racism and slavery. This is often disguised as "tolerance."
It does not seem to matter that slavery ended in 1865 and was forever prohibited by the 13th Amendment, which is well and good. And it likewise does not seem to matter that minorities in this country are protected by every conceivable law, legislation, Amendment, program, executive order and affirmative action proclamation that could be conceived by the federal mind, which is also well.
The point is: to advance the leftist, progressive, post-modern agenda, we must not only sell what we want--we must repudiate whatever the public sees as supporting the opposite position. In this case, we must convince people that the South--at least the mythical South, endorses the evils of racism and slavery and that it is intolerant. Of course, they flew the "confederate flag" to prove it. It only follows that southerners must react defensively to prove that they are not really racists or all the ancestors of slaveholders; thus, southerns must at least pretend to support the basic heart pulse of the liberal progressives. Else they will be found guilty for not partially endorsing the progressive left. (So, the Governor of Alabama and South Carolina take down the confederate flag as a defensive response, just to prove that they are not racist or intolerant.
It matters not that probably less than one tenth of 1 percent of southerners would today endorse any form of racism, or would condone any form of discrimination--or that the institution of slavery is so far removed from their consciousness that they don't even have a conceptualization of it, except that they loath and condemn the ancient chattel slavery system. It matters none. If they are southerners, they must be condemned by the truly progressive, superior liberated minds of the political left and by the rightist "conservatives" who fear the left and do homage to it.
So we have the modern cultural war on the South. And people can't wait to leap on that wagon and ride because they feel the end of the ride will result in great political reward. Which is probably true.
Even Bill Clinton, the Arkansas boy who made good, said of Donald Trump: "Make America Great Again? If you are a white southerner, you know what that means!" Donald Trump is white, though not a Southerner; therefore, he must be a racist.
I've told you about my friend who lives alone in a big 4 bedroom house that his family has always "owned." Get used to that word being in quotation marks. "Owned," as we now say. The word is becoming archaic, silly, outdated. The very idea that a person can "own" anything! The word "own" is never allowed in a socialist or Marxist society. The idea that an individual can "own" anything is repulsive, stupid and it has outlived it's usefulness. Speaking of "owning" something belongs to the old generation, not the new one. That's how we're being trained to think.
Anyway, my friend lives in this huge old house that he believes he "owns." That's the word we old timers would have used for property we bought and paid for and it was always ours. We felt that we "owned" it. My friend feels that way. But he supports Bernie Sanders' idea that we should all be economically equal. I don't think he has thought it through.
Even though my friend is poor and lives on a small Social Security check, he is not equal. He has a great deal more than many people. First, he has that big old house, which is bigger than most houses around. There are certainly many people who have to get by with much smaller houses. Second, he "owns" two automobiles. There are people around who only have one car. There are many people around who don't have a car at all. Some people have to walk, hitch a ride or take the bus. So my friend has better transportation than some people.
Also, my friend eats out a lot. I see him at restaurants around town, fast food and nicer placers, nearly every day. A lot of people don't get to eat out nearly every day. A lot of people have to eat at home and they may only be able to afford soup or Ramen Noodles. You get the idea. My friend is not equal. He eats a lot better than some people.
My friend gets good medical care. He has Medicare because of his age. And I think he may have a "gap" policy that pays what Medicare doesn't. There are a lot of people who are still uninsured and have trouble getting medical care at all. So my friend is not equal. He is above equal.
Now, to make the world equal, something will have to be done about my friend. Simply put, he has too much to be equal with everyone. True, there are many people who have more than he has; but there are many people who have less. So, somebody will have to find all the people who have more and take away some of what they have. Then, they will have to take away some of what my friend has (maybe his big house and one of his cars) and give it to somebody who is more "not equal" than he is.
However, this will cause yet more inequality. My friend will still have more than some people and less than others.
"The US Government already controls 50 percent of the US economy. We already have a socialist government, just not total socialism.
How much Socialism would be enough? 75 percent? 90 percent? Or do we
need 100 percent, like North Korea? How much socialism is enough?"
I don't think anyone has ever solved the true "equality" problem. North Korea has come about as close as anyone ever has. (Cuba is really not that close). Each day, the North Korean government measures out a certain amount of rice for each man, woman and child in the country. Everyone gets the same amount, except workers get more than those who don't work. If anyone is caught growing or eating additional food, they are imprisoned and tortured. The idea is that everybody must be equal. In spite of those extreme measures, there is a small class of people who are rich and live lavish lifestyles. They are elite members of the ruling Communist (Socialist) party. They have limos, $3,000 suits, diamond rings...and they dine of caviar and drink expensive wines. They attend lavish dinner parties and spend thousands of dollars on one evening of entertainment. That's all right, though, because we don't count them. They are exceptions. Nearly everyone else is "equal."
In North Korea, trading or commerce is not permitted unless it is done by the Communist Party - because somebody could possibly make some money or become more affluent than somebody else. You cannot "own" a home, a vehicle, a vegetable garden or even an animal. Chickens, horses, cows and even dogs belong the the Communist Party. If you are caught killing a chicken, you are arrested and charged with stealing from the Party. They try really hard to keep everyone equal.
Now, of course, my friend says that Bernie doesn't want that kind of Socialism for America! However, that's the only kind of pure Socialism there is. Anything less is not true Socialism but a mixture of Socialism and free market capitalism. And all Socialists, in all of history, began by saying they didn't want that kind of Socialism. Lenin said he didn't he want that kind of Socialism.
So let's all go down to the polls and elect Bernie in November. Let's trust Bernie not to give us that kind of Socialism, but a friendlier, gentler kind (whatever that is). There is only one problem with that.
The US Government already controls 50 percent of the US economy. We already have a 50% socialist government, just not purely or totally socialist. So, if we are not socialist enough now - we must need pretty radical socialist reform to drive us further toward a Marxist-Lenist economy. How much Socialism would be enough? 75 percent? 90 percent? Or do we need 100 percent, like North Korea? How much socialism is enough?
How will we know when we are all financially equal? Will it be when the government begins to measure out our food each day?
I have a friend who loves Bernie Sanders, or thinks he does. My guess is, he doesn't know Bernie Sanders or what he really stands for. But he thinks Bernie is all right. He thinks Bernie wants to makes all of us more equal.
My friend believes that it is wrong for some people to earn a lot of money while other have nearly nothing. He believes it is unjust that his former employer lived in a large house, drove a new car and went to expensive vacations, while he, my friend, earned minimum wage and barely got by. My friends longs for a world in which Bernie Sanders will make the rich people pay more and give the poor part of their wealth.
However, my friend will not like the world when the followers of Bernie Sanders take over. Believe me, he will not like it.
You see, my friend, though he considers himself to be poor, lives in a large old house that he inherited from his mother and father. He lives alone in the old house with 4 bedrooms, a separate living room, dining room, kitchen and 2 bathrooms. That's more house than he needs. That's more than many poor people have.
That house should be occupied by a larger family with, say 5 or 6 kids, and 3 or 4 adults. My friend should be moved to a small efficiency apartment with one bedroom, a tiny bathroom and a small kitchenette. Maybe 700 sq. ft.
Who says he should? Bernie Sanders, that's who. In the real world of socialism, the government forces "efficiency." One old man has no right to live in a large house that could better be used to house a large family with 6 kids. In fact, an individual has no right to own anything...period. The government would own the house and decide who gets to live there. And it would not be my friend. The government would decide how many automobiles to be manufactured each year and it would own the auto production factories. my friend drives an old car but if he ever wanted a newer one, he would have to get Bernie's permission to buy one. I don't think he would like that.
For socialism to work, the government must own and control nearly everything. As long as individuals own private property, they can decide what to do with it. This is as anti-socialist as it gets. Socialism must, by definition, destroy the private ownership of property. That's the only way to make everyone truly "equal." Once our right to "own" anything is taken away, we have no real rights.
Who says my friend has a right to live in his big old house if he wants to? The private ownership of property says so. He owns it, he can live in it as long as he wants. But only as long as he owns it. But if he no longer owned it..... If the government owned it.... Then, the government would decide who lives there.
My friend drives a big, gas guzzling automobile. The socialist would say he should not do so. He ought to drive a little Geo Metro or some other little two-seater contraption.
If my friend understood Bernie, I don't think he would like him or his plan for America. But my friend does not understand Bernie. Neither do the millions of people pushing for a socialist or Marxist agenda for America. They won't like the real Bernie, either. Any more than Russia liked Lenin or Stalin. Any more than Cuba liked Fidel, once he was really in power. Any more than Venezuela liked Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. But they learned too late.
I saw a poll the other day that says 40 percent of college students feel that socialism is better than our present free enterprise ("capitalist") system. 50 percent of high school students prefer socialism. However, a majority of them could not define or explain what socialism is. They've just been taught to prefer it.
If you believe those numbers, we can't be very far away from electing a socialist (excuse me "Democratic Socialist") government. Heck, the Socialist candidate got 40 percent of the vote in Georgia and Alabama in the primaries. Maybe we're even closer than I feared.
APRIL 9, 1865 (APPAMATTOX COURT HOUSE, VIRGINIA) - Robert E. Lee surrenders the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant, commanding, Army of the Potomac.
A ragged and starving Confederate army surrendered today after being surrounded by superior Union forces commanded by Ulysses S. Grant. The Southern army attempted for weeks to fight its way out of Grant's tightening encirclement. Lee's army, facing hunger and depletion of manpower, launched one brutal attack after another against Union forces, hoping to connect with railroad shipments of vital food supplies, which ultimately failed. The final battle came near the tiny village of Appomattox Court House.
After a series of written exchanges between Lee and Grant during the previous day, a meeting was hastily arranged for April 9th at Mr. McLean's house in the village of Appamattox. General Grant rode most of the night to arrive in time for the meeting. He reportedly suffered a severe headache and appeared tired, wearing a mud splattered private's uniform. In striking contrast, Lee appeared wearing a new gray uniform, polished boots and parade sword.
After a brief conversation, General Lee signed the surrender document and rose to leave without ceremony.
As Lee began to ride away, Grant's troops began to cheer, their intent being to cheer the Union's victory. Grant immediately silenced them, reminding his troops that "The rebs are our countrymen again."
This event could only have occurred in the world of 1865, never in today's world. In today's world, it would have been much different.
There would have been yelling mobs outside the McLean house. Agitators would have been bused in from Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities. Liberal spokesmen would have appeared decrying the racial injustice that had been done, demanding change. Pinch hitters would have appeared at the CNN, MSNBC and CBS news buses, reminding audiences how dastardly the South had been. Demands would have been made for retribution against Lee, his officers, his army. Doubtless, arrests would have occurred, military tribunals established on the spot and the "rebel" prisoners would have been shot or lynched. Even the graves of dead Confederate soldiers would have been dug open and the bodies exhumed for humiliation and dishonor. All Confederate flags and southern state flags would have been gathered and ceremonially burned. Tiny Confederate flags meant to mark the graves of southern soldiers would have been prohibited. Great care would have been taken to make certain that all traces of the Confederacy's existence was forever hidden--expunged, so that no one would ever know its story.
In addition to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which followed the war, other amendments would have been ratified. The 16th Amendment would have made it a federal crime to fly the Confederate flag or any insignia which resembles the flag. The 17th Amendment would have banned any motion picture, video game, photography, literary work, song or other literary or artistic depiction of any Confederate person, flag, idea, image or notion in any form. The 18th Amendment would have authorized cities and states to disinter dead Confederate soldiers and leaders and remove their bodies from city parks, to tear down their statues and rename any park, street, building or other remembrance or memorial. It would be a federal crime to in any way honor a southern "hero" or person who had participated in the Civil War if he had worn a Confederate uniform or served in a Confederate or southern state government position.
That's what would have happened if the War Between the States had ended in 2015, instead of in 1865. The world, you see, has become a much more politically corrupt and politically wicked place than it was in 1865. Alas, there are no Lincolns among us today. No US Grants, either, for that matter. The weary battle-worn General in the plain blue uniform at Appomattox who silenced his cheering soldiers as Lee rode away would have been expected to "loose the vengeance of his terrible swift sword..." Grant would have been reluctant but probably could not have withstood the political pressure from the far left in his own party. It would not have been a pretty sight.
There have been plenty of times when insanity has pulled earth out of its normal orbit. It happened in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia, and during the French Revolution, as a few examples. I want to explore the French Revolution a little more.
The basic idea of the French Revolution was to change people's beliefs, identities and values. It was also to re-educate people and to eradicate traditional ways of thinking so a new cultural normal could be introduced. While it evoked a fondness for decimalization and metrication, it went a lot further than decimals and metrics. It had a great deal to do with secularization, the removal of religion from society or, at least, marginalizing religion so that it had no influence on the state or national life. And it causes us to think about some of what is happening in Post Modern America.
After the French Revolution, the traditional 7-day week was changed to a week with 10 days. Sunday was replaced with the tenth day, called "decadi." This disrupted worship on Sunday and it was intended to. (Spelling was even changed, e.g., Bible became bible).
The traditional 24-hour day was changed. The new day had 10 hours. Each hour had 100 minutes. Each minute contained 100 seconds.
So, the new French hour contained 144 conventional minutes (making it over twice as long). The new minute contained 86.4 conventional seconds (44% longer). The new second equaled only 0.864 conventional seconds (13.6% shorter).
I assume that this was so confusing that nobody was on time because nobody knew what time it was. Workers didn't like the system because now they got one day off every 10 days instead of 1 day off every 7 days. (No, the national domestic product did not increase correspondingly).
If the clock situation isn't confusing enough, the French radicals messed with the calendar, too. They kept a 12 month year but changed the names of everything. Weeks had 10 days. And the New Year began in the Autumn. Here are the names of the months (all new, of
course):
Autumn
vendemiaire - "grape harvest"
bromaire - "midst"
frimaire - "frost"
Winter
nivose - "snowy"
pluviose - "rainy"
ventose - "windy"
Spring
germinal - from "germination"
florial - "flower"
prairial - "meadow"
Summer
messidor - "harvest"
thermidor - "summer heat"
fructidor - "fruit"
In other parts of the world, Britain in particular, they poked fun at the new months, calling them: "Wheezy, Sneezy and Breezy; Flippy, Drippy and Nippy; Showery, Flowery and Bowery; and Hoppy, Croppy and Poppy."
As I said, the goofy French extremists invented a new week that contained 10 days instead of seven. They were very creative in naming the new days of the week, as you will see.
primidi - first day
duodi - second day
tridi - third day
quartidi - fourth day
quintidi - fifth day
sextidi - sixth day
septidi - seventh day
octidi - eighth day
nonidi - ninth day
decadi - tenth day (replacing Sunday, the traditional day of rest or worship)
Many "enlightened" secularists today will tell you that the French Revolution changed the world and ushered in the beautiful new world of human rights that followed. But there is much they won't admit about the French Revolution:
Instability was rampant. There were eleven new constitutions since 1789. France experimented with every form of government, including dictatorship, absolute monarchy, republican, democratic, and monarchy again.
Rights came to be seen as abstractions bestowed by a powerful, coercive state which often undercut tradition, custom, law or traditional liberties.
Wars. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars convulsed and changed the entire map of Europe and began the colonization process. The Revolution also brought the rise of nationalism and with it the rise of national hatred and conflict, never more prominent than in Germany, ultimately realized under Bismark. The French Revolution poisoned Europe for the entire century which followed and indirectly set the stage for World Wars I and II.
Violence. Not only wars, but political violence followed. Anticlericalism led to the repudiation of Christian values and sentiments and injected hate into the political process in France. We would do well to remember that hate was first ushered into the political process by liberal extremists during the French Revolution.
In fact, our term "right wing" and "left wing" as used in modern times comes from the French Revolution. It referred to the seating arrangements of the two major groups in the Constituent Assembly.
The Revolution took traditional Christian values out of public life. Citizenship or nationalism became the only sort of identity recognized by the French State, making it harder for France to integrate religious minorities such as Muslims, who find their identities elsewhere (certainly outside of France, as we have seen).
Defenders of the French Revolution will point out that it ended absolute monarchies in Europe. It did that. However, Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA regards the Revolution as an enormous dysfunctional family haunted by patricide: Louis as the father, Marie-Antoinette as the mother, and the revolutionaries as the unruly mob of brothers.
So, we can see a great deal of ourselves in the French Revolution: social unrest, revolt against authority, questioning of all traditions or customs, secularization, violence, political hatred, rampant political correctness, terror, instability, government indecisiveness, destruction of culture and tradition, increase of central state power, underpinning of moral principles, experimentation-- change just for the sake of change. (You will continue to see "CHANGE" as a key political word in upcoming campaigns, even after you might think that Obama has ruined the word).
What's the real reason for all the uproar about the Confederate flag a while back, anyway? I think I know.
It's about turning out the black vote in the South (and elsewhere). Rebel rousing (no pun intended) fires up the voters. It turns them out. In the close 2016 presidential election, it may all hinge on who comes out to vote, especially in the Southern states.
How does a Democratic Party that lost so bad in the mid-terms turn out its base? By rebel rousing, that's how. Make the voters mad. Infuriate them. Give them a cause. Put Jesse, "Rev." Al, Obama and Hillary on TV gripping about the Confederate flag or Nathan B. Forrest, Jim Crow, police brutality--anything! Just make 'em mad and get 'em to the polls.
Turning out the vote in 2016. "Don't let them do it to us again in 2016 like they did in the Mid-terms."
Expect more and more of the 8-cylinder potty mouthing as the election approaches.
- The other rebel rousing topic, of course, is alleged police brutality. Keep that pot stirred, too. In fact, the anti-police pot will have more longevity than the flag issue. It's already working in Ferguson, Chicago and Baltimore. Will it work in Atlanta, Memphis or Charleston, too? I bet it will if two things happen:
One, they bring in the heavy hitters to seize the opportunity, and
Two, the media plays along.
Aw, forget number 2, that's a given.
