Showing posts with label quotes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quotes. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Temporary At Best
I was watching the History Channel today, and after the show that I had been watching, a show about UFOs came on, and while I was not watching it specifically, I didn't change the channel, and just left it on while I puttered around the house. One thing stuck me more than any other, and really got me thinking. They were talking about US Presidents, and their relationships to UFO information, at least in the minds of UFO fanatics... um, I mean, researchers. Anyway, they talked about something that Ronald Reagan called his fantasy. He believed that if the Earth were attacked by aliens from outer space, the peoples of Earth would lay aside their differences and unite for the good of all mankind, and that this would forge peace.
This thought was not unique to President Reagan, it can be seen in literature and pop culture, for instance, the 1996 blockbuster movie "Independence Day" with Will Smith.
This really got me thinking, would this actually work? If there were and invasion by hostile aliens who would brook no quarter, and were bent on the destruction of our planet and the entire human race, who would not try to enlist some nations or cultures as allies to destroy the rest, but simply move against all of us at once, would we really come together and fight side by side to defeat this threat? Would Hugo Chavez work with the USA? Would Syria fight side by side with Israel? I think that in the face of such an overwhelming enemy, the answer is probably yes. As far as that goes, I can agree with President Reagan, and the others who have posited such a scenario. This works on the principle of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, that's as far as I can go.
Surely, we don't need to talk about what happens if we lose. If we are all dead or enslaved by some alien race, then our difficulties amongst ourselves would be quite unimportant. But what if we won? What if we, as in "Independence Day," managed to utterly destroy the invading hoard? What then? Would the episode really have forged a lasting peace? Would we all really start to get along, and decide that the things that divided us in the past really weren't that big of a deal? I don't think so.
I think that we would see exceptional cooperation during the course of the crisis, and as far as some of those who are not openly hostile to one another, but perhaps hadn't been that friendly, there might be some cooperation to help each other get back on their feet. On the other hand, there are some groups that hate each other so much that they would try to press the issue, and use whatever damage had been done to their lifelong enemy, and very temporary allies, to move in and utterly destroy them.
Even if there were good reason to believe that there might be second wave of attack at some point, the cooperation would still be short lived. You might well not see wars break out across the world right away, as many would be looking to prepare for another attack, but you would see a return to status quo at best, and, if no further attack came, the resumption of strife.
The idea being put forth in these scenarios, is that our differences really don't matter that much, that they are petty, and that some great calamity would cause people to see that and get over the differences. The problem is that this is an overly optimistic view. In truth, the differences do matter, many of them are not petty, and certainly not to the people involved, it would be ignorant to think that people could just get over it in the long term. Basic human nature simply doesn't allow for it. Nor does the nature and history of some of our disputes.
In the case of Ronald Reagan, I think he understood that we had to work hard for peace, that we couldn't just wait for aliens, or some natural disaster, or whatever your calamity of choice, to force people to stop fighting. For some though, I think this can be a dangerous idea, because they don't really understand how deadly serious the issues are that divide us. They really think that it's all petty, and if the hardheaded people out there would just soften up a bit, and maybe be willing to compromise, then everything would be ok. Of course, it simply doesn't work that way. Some principles and beliefs really are that important, they really are worth dying for, and defense of one's self, or one's family, or even one's country, really is worth killing for. Thus, wars will always be with us. Ronald Reagan understood that. As much as he wanted peace, as much as he wanted the end of war, he called it his fantasy because he knew the stark reality that conflict is not so easily shoved aside. He understood that real peace for the USA could only be achieved through strength, yes it would be wonderful if the rest of the world liked us and respected us, and bore us no ill will, but because that too is a fantasy, we can only have peace if they fear what will happen if they attack us.
This is something that we have lost in our current leadership today. The Obama administration has taken on a posture of appeasement. An ideal that everyone will like us if only we bend to their every whim. But as Hitler taught Neville Chamberlain, appeasement will only take you down the road toward more appeasement in the future, and until you stand up and fight, or are ultimately destroyed, there will be no end to appeasement. By contrast, Winston Churchill took a solid position that he would never surrender, and paid for peace with blood, but that peace was real.
The lessons of history are clear, we ignore it at our own peril. It was that great British leader, Winston Churchill himself, who said, "Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it." If the American people don't wake up soon, we may find "doomed" to be a very appropriate word.
This thought was not unique to President Reagan, it can be seen in literature and pop culture, for instance, the 1996 blockbuster movie "Independence Day" with Will Smith.
This really got me thinking, would this actually work? If there were and invasion by hostile aliens who would brook no quarter, and were bent on the destruction of our planet and the entire human race, who would not try to enlist some nations or cultures as allies to destroy the rest, but simply move against all of us at once, would we really come together and fight side by side to defeat this threat? Would Hugo Chavez work with the USA? Would Syria fight side by side with Israel? I think that in the face of such an overwhelming enemy, the answer is probably yes. As far as that goes, I can agree with President Reagan, and the others who have posited such a scenario. This works on the principle of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, that's as far as I can go.
Surely, we don't need to talk about what happens if we lose. If we are all dead or enslaved by some alien race, then our difficulties amongst ourselves would be quite unimportant. But what if we won? What if we, as in "Independence Day," managed to utterly destroy the invading hoard? What then? Would the episode really have forged a lasting peace? Would we all really start to get along, and decide that the things that divided us in the past really weren't that big of a deal? I don't think so.
I think that we would see exceptional cooperation during the course of the crisis, and as far as some of those who are not openly hostile to one another, but perhaps hadn't been that friendly, there might be some cooperation to help each other get back on their feet. On the other hand, there are some groups that hate each other so much that they would try to press the issue, and use whatever damage had been done to their lifelong enemy, and very temporary allies, to move in and utterly destroy them.
Even if there were good reason to believe that there might be second wave of attack at some point, the cooperation would still be short lived. You might well not see wars break out across the world right away, as many would be looking to prepare for another attack, but you would see a return to status quo at best, and, if no further attack came, the resumption of strife.
The idea being put forth in these scenarios, is that our differences really don't matter that much, that they are petty, and that some great calamity would cause people to see that and get over the differences. The problem is that this is an overly optimistic view. In truth, the differences do matter, many of them are not petty, and certainly not to the people involved, it would be ignorant to think that people could just get over it in the long term. Basic human nature simply doesn't allow for it. Nor does the nature and history of some of our disputes.
In the case of Ronald Reagan, I think he understood that we had to work hard for peace, that we couldn't just wait for aliens, or some natural disaster, or whatever your calamity of choice, to force people to stop fighting. For some though, I think this can be a dangerous idea, because they don't really understand how deadly serious the issues are that divide us. They really think that it's all petty, and if the hardheaded people out there would just soften up a bit, and maybe be willing to compromise, then everything would be ok. Of course, it simply doesn't work that way. Some principles and beliefs really are that important, they really are worth dying for, and defense of one's self, or one's family, or even one's country, really is worth killing for. Thus, wars will always be with us. Ronald Reagan understood that. As much as he wanted peace, as much as he wanted the end of war, he called it his fantasy because he knew the stark reality that conflict is not so easily shoved aside. He understood that real peace for the USA could only be achieved through strength, yes it would be wonderful if the rest of the world liked us and respected us, and bore us no ill will, but because that too is a fantasy, we can only have peace if they fear what will happen if they attack us.
This is something that we have lost in our current leadership today. The Obama administration has taken on a posture of appeasement. An ideal that everyone will like us if only we bend to their every whim. But as Hitler taught Neville Chamberlain, appeasement will only take you down the road toward more appeasement in the future, and until you stand up and fight, or are ultimately destroyed, there will be no end to appeasement. By contrast, Winston Churchill took a solid position that he would never surrender, and paid for peace with blood, but that peace was real.
The lessons of history are clear, we ignore it at our own peril. It was that great British leader, Winston Churchill himself, who said, "Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it." If the American people don't wake up soon, we may find "doomed" to be a very appropriate word.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Tough Love
What follows is a letter from President Abraham Lincoln to his brother-in-law in response to (another) request for money. Note that at the time of this letter (1848) he was not yet President. Talk about refusing to enable bad behavior! We should get someone to talk to Congress this way.
***************************************************
Dear Johnston:--
Your request for eighty dollars, I do not think it best to comply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little, you have said to me, "We can get along very well now," but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not _lazy_, and still you _are_ an _idler_. I doubt whether since I saw you, you have done a good whole day's work, in any one day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty; and it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break this habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it easier than they can get out after they are in.
You are now in need of some ready money; and what I propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of things at home--prepare for a crop, and make the crop; and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get. And to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now promise you that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of next May, get for your own labor either in money or in your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. In this, I do not mean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines, in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home, in Coles County. Now if you will do this, you will soon be out of debt, and what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I should now clear you out, next year you will be just as deep in as ever. You say you would almost give your place in Heaven for $70 or $80. Then you value your place in Heaven very cheaply, for I am sure you can with the offer I make you get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. You say if I furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession-- Nonsense! If you can't now live _with_ the land, how will you then live without it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not now mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eight times eighty dollars to you.
Affectionately your brother,
A. LINCOLN.Thursday, January 29, 2009
Who Needs The Constitution Anyway?
Have you ever noticed that Liberals hate the very idea of States Rights when there is an issue that clearly falls under the domain of the Several States? And yet, when something comes up, like it now has, with individual states wanting to set their own emissions standards for cars, which would clearly fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Liberals all cry out for States Rights.
It is the legitimate duty of the Federal Government to regulate such things, being that a car will be built in one state and sold in every other state, or nearly so, and so the elected officials of one state should not be able to impose their will on the people of the other states in which they were not elected. And in the case of emissions standards, that is what will happen, the auto makers will, out of necessity, comply with the most stringent standards, because they won't be able to afford to make 37 different engines for the same model of car, so the most extreme State Government would decide for the entire nation what the standard would be, and this would jack the price of a car up well past what is reasonable, just to comply with Government mandates, and those mandates put in place by people elected in only one state.
It's too bad that the Obama Administration is already looking to tighten the Federal Governments strangle hold on the auto industry, by cranking MPG requirements even higher than they already are, at a time when they have just given them billions of dollars because they can't make ends meet. Who, exactly, thought that it was a good idea to take actions that will make cars more expensive and less safe? Yes, that's right, less safe, the current standards cost thousands of lives every year, the evidence is clear, every time the MPG requirements are increased highway fatalities increase also. That's not to say that there are more accidents because of this, but that the accidents are less survivable. Why is that? It's because you reach a point, and we have been there for some time, where the only way to increase gas mileage is to make the cars lighter, and that means that they do not offer as much protection in a crash, because some of the safety features were sacrificed in order to get the MPG rating up. The Liberals are literally willing to risk killing you and your family in order to "save the planet."
So, let's take an industry that the Government has regulated nearly into oblivion, that we the people have been forced to give billions of our hard earned dollars to in order to keep them afloat, have the Federal Government kick them while they are down with MPG requirements, and then sucker punch them by allowing each state to require different levels of standards from them. How long is it before our Government beats the auto makers into another bailout? I fear it may not be long.
The great Ronald Reagan once said, "Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
It is the legitimate duty of the Federal Government to regulate such things, being that a car will be built in one state and sold in every other state, or nearly so, and so the elected officials of one state should not be able to impose their will on the people of the other states in which they were not elected. And in the case of emissions standards, that is what will happen, the auto makers will, out of necessity, comply with the most stringent standards, because they won't be able to afford to make 37 different engines for the same model of car, so the most extreme State Government would decide for the entire nation what the standard would be, and this would jack the price of a car up well past what is reasonable, just to comply with Government mandates, and those mandates put in place by people elected in only one state.
It's too bad that the Obama Administration is already looking to tighten the Federal Governments strangle hold on the auto industry, by cranking MPG requirements even higher than they already are, at a time when they have just given them billions of dollars because they can't make ends meet. Who, exactly, thought that it was a good idea to take actions that will make cars more expensive and less safe? Yes, that's right, less safe, the current standards cost thousands of lives every year, the evidence is clear, every time the MPG requirements are increased highway fatalities increase also. That's not to say that there are more accidents because of this, but that the accidents are less survivable. Why is that? It's because you reach a point, and we have been there for some time, where the only way to increase gas mileage is to make the cars lighter, and that means that they do not offer as much protection in a crash, because some of the safety features were sacrificed in order to get the MPG rating up. The Liberals are literally willing to risk killing you and your family in order to "save the planet."
So, let's take an industry that the Government has regulated nearly into oblivion, that we the people have been forced to give billions of our hard earned dollars to in order to keep them afloat, have the Federal Government kick them while they are down with MPG requirements, and then sucker punch them by allowing each state to require different levels of standards from them. How long is it before our Government beats the auto makers into another bailout? I fear it may not be long.
The great Ronald Reagan once said, "Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Little Civics Lesson
Just the other day I was listening to a local radio show, one of those where they discuss politics and current events and such, and this guy calls in and asks how it is that there are things that are clearly wanted by large majorities of the American people, and yet those things are not being done. Then he says, "Since we're ruled by the majority..." and the host cut him off and said basically, hold on there, we're not a democracy. The guy reacted with shock and says "We're not?" The host explained, no, we're a Representative Republic, which means we vote for the people who make the decisions, but we don't vote to decide every individual decision that comes along. Of course the host was exactly right, but this exemplifies just how ignorant many Americans are about how their Government works.
I have had people before, who seemed to be fairly well informed, who were just totally convinced that we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a total Oxymoron, such a beast cannot exist, and yet, they are committed to the idea that such is our Government. No, as stated above, we are a Representative Republic, or, it could also be accurately described as a Constitutional Republic, the only thing thing that we do that bears any resemblance to democracy is the way that we vote to elect our leaders, but that does not somehow stamp us with the identity of a democracy.
A democracy is a fearful master, for the rights of any minority can be utterly trampled by the majority at any time. It is, simply put, majority rule, which often would lead to mob rule, and anyone not in the mob would simply be trampled underfoot. Democracy is the antithesis to liberty, or, at least one of them.
Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
I have had people before, who seemed to be fairly well informed, who were just totally convinced that we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a total Oxymoron, such a beast cannot exist, and yet, they are committed to the idea that such is our Government. No, as stated above, we are a Representative Republic, or, it could also be accurately described as a Constitutional Republic, the only thing thing that we do that bears any resemblance to democracy is the way that we vote to elect our leaders, but that does not somehow stamp us with the identity of a democracy.
A democracy is a fearful master, for the rights of any minority can be utterly trampled by the majority at any time. It is, simply put, majority rule, which often would lead to mob rule, and anyone not in the mob would simply be trampled underfoot. Democracy is the antithesis to liberty, or, at least one of them.
Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Some Quotes To Share
Just thought I would take a minute today and list some quotes from down through the ages, some may be famous, and some aren't, but I hope you enjoy them.
"A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killers hands."--Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 45 AD
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."--Benjamin Franklin
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." -- Patrick Henry
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason
"How do you tell a Communist? A Communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." --Ronald Reagan
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan
"When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the Government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S. Patton Jr.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." -- General George S. Patton Jr.
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison
"Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." -- George W. Bush
"Character, not circumstances, makes the man." -- Booker T. Washington
"Hope is no basis for a defense policy." -- Margaret Thatcher
"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." -- Calvin Coolidge
"You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." -- Margaret Thatcher
And the best one for today:
"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns." -- Ronald Reagan
"A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killers hands."--Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 45 AD
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."--Benjamin Franklin
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." -- Patrick Henry
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason
"How do you tell a Communist? A Communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." --Ronald Reagan
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan
"When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the Government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S. Patton Jr.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." -- General George S. Patton Jr.
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison
"Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." -- George W. Bush
"Character, not circumstances, makes the man." -- Booker T. Washington
"Hope is no basis for a defense policy." -- Margaret Thatcher
"You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." -- Margaret Thatcher
And the best one for today:
"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns." -- Ronald Reagan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
