Radio Memories: False Mirrors

History is ultimately story; a narrative based on that most imperfect of sources, the human mind, and its most unreliable contents, human memory.

Our Sunday series of Radio Memories posts has usually tried to modestly sharpen our understanding of history by unearthing buried relics from the dearly departed art form of radio drama; a re-examination of stories fallen through the cracks of memory, hopefully illuminating a side of ourselves that had been forgotten. So much of learning involves re-learning, after all; remembering hard-earned lessons too quickly forgotten, too readily mis-understood.

Family memories of the days before television inevitably include stories of the hours spent devouring the audio art of theatrical radio: radio drama, the theater of the mind. Comedy, adventure, thrillers, romance... a wide variety of programming involving sound effects, mood music, evocative acting and provocative story-telling, of such power that decades later a request to share those memories inevitably sparks the warmest of smiles, the fondest of memories, from those fortunate enough to have experienced them firsthand, through the 1930s, '40s, and '50s.

One engaging series that deserves more attention is CBS' valiant attempt at making history interesting to those under the mistaken impression that history was, somehow, a boring subject. The brainchild of the mercurial humorist Goodman Ace, You Are There was premised on a delightful whimsy tailor-made for the imagination-based medium of radio drama: what if CBS' news department had been in operation at the major events in past history, using the same pool of correspondents that had recently covered the epic Second World War?

Last April we offered the You Are There episode on the suspenseful capture of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth; in a related sequel this Sunday we jump ahead a few years to the dramatic high point of Lincoln's successor, President Andrew Johnson... and the beginning of a false memory, a distortion of history.

When we know anything about the impeachment of President Johnson at all, we might think that he was bullied and bruised by extremist "Radical Republicans", by "...a Congress, determined to avenge the devastation and slaughter of The War, turned its anger on President Johnson for advocating Lincoln's policy of a charitable peace, based upon his well-remembered words, 'with malice towards none'," as John Charles Daly himself sets the stage in the February 27 1949 broadcast below.

I respectfully propose that we all think a second time about how trustworthy that memory might be.

Let's look at Andrew Johnson's life, as prologue to the re-enacted concluding chapter presented on the You Are There show.

Democrat Andrew Johnson was one of the 12 slave-owning Presidents of the United States, although he is one of the four who did not own slaves while serving as President. Elected mayor of Greenville Tennessee in 1834, he started his political career by helping pass a new Constitution for that state which denied freed blacks the right to vote. After representing Tennessee in Congress in the 1840s, where he voted in favor of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, he became Governor of Tennessee in 1853. As Governor he signed into law legislation that required blacks freed from slavery to be deported; not to another state, but deported to Africa.

During the fractious 1860 Presidential election, the Democrat Party split in two, seeing the Southern States nominating former Vice President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky as Presidential candidate, since the candidate selected at the Democratic National Convention, Illinois Senator (and perennial Lincoln rival) Stephen A. Douglas was viewed as not bigoted enough on the issue of slavery to be worthy of support. The split enabled the candidate of the newly-formed Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, to win the Presidency with only 40% of the vote.

Johnson supported Breckenridge in that contest.

Despite his support for slavery, professed again and again on the Senate floor, War Democrat Andrew Johnson nevertheless remained loyal to the Union. He continued to represent the state of Tennessee as its military governor through the early years of the Civil War. In 1862, Johnson persuaded the Republican President to exclude his state from Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, ensuring that slavery would continue in the Southern state of Tennessee, as it would in Northern slave states.

President Lincoln faced a tough re-election campaign in 1864: in an effort to broaden their appeal to War Democrats the party name was changed from Republican to the National Union Party, and the convention selected Johnson to fill Hannibal Hamlin's Vice Presidential seat. What followed was a curious choice for a party founded on abolishing slavery, but ends justify means in politics then as today, it seems: it was thought that Democrat Andrew Johnson would attract enough northern Democrat votes away from Peace Democrat candidate General McLellan to help make up for increased defections in the Republican ranks. The most pro-abolitionist wing of the party, known as the "Radical Republicans", were disappointed with Lincoln's slow moves to end slavery during the war, and in particular his vetoing of the "Ironclad Oath", a measure that would prevent slavery-supporting Confederates from holding political office after the war. They set up a new party of their own, the Radical Democrat Party, and held their convention a month before the Republicans had scheduled their own. Former Lincoln-supporting abolitionists such as Wendel Phillips turned once again to the original Republican Presidential standard-bearer, John C. Fremont, as their candidate.

The assasination of Lincoln in April of 1865 thrust Democrat Johnson to the Presidency, and with Congress recessed until December of that year, the immediate burdens of forging peace fell upon the former slave-owner's shoulders. The state governments installed under his approach to "reconstruction" saw former Confederate combattants emerge in positions of political prominence, enabling the exact opposite result intended by the "Ironclad Oath" favored by the Radical Republicans: the Southern states returned to office the same kind of pro-slavery Confederate Democrats that had been in power prior to the war. These Democrat politicans promptly enacted 'black codes' calculated to circumvent the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which had abolished slavery in the United States.

When the Republican-dominated Congress finally reconvened, they tried to renew the authority of the wartime government office of the Freedman's Bureau, charged with providing medical aid, food and shelter to the freed black slaves. President Johnson vetoed the bill to renew, but his veto was successfully over-ridden by the Senate, despite every single Democrat voting to sustain Johnson's veto.

Reacting to the Southern Democrats black codes, which stripped millions of blacks of their legal rights, Republican Congressmen passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, in an attempt to guarantee the right to vote for anyone born in the United States of America. President Johnson vetoed the Act, but the Senate once again overrode his veto, as did the House, allowing the Act to become Law.

In January 1867 President Johnson vetoed a bill to grant the right to vote to blacks living in the District of Columbia, the very capital of the country. His veto was over-ridden by the Senate and the Congress the following day.

The "Radical Republicans" tried to thwart Southern Democrats' efforts to continue to deny blacks the right to vote, through the First Reconstruction Act in early March 1868. This Act was vetoed by President Johnson; once again the Senate and Congress managed to over-ride his veto.

The Second Reconstruction Act of March 1868 was also vetoed by President Johnson; this time his veto was over-ridden the same day, March 22nd.

Two more Reconstruction Acts were vetoed by the President, and twice more his vetoes were over-ridden by an increasingly frustrated Senate and Congress.

In his State of the Union message delivered on December 3rd, 1867, President Johnson devotes paragraph after paragraph to his views on why it was such a mistake to give black-skinned citizens of the US the right to vote:

The morality is always false which excuses a wrong because it proposes to accomplish a desirable end. We are not permitted to do evil that good may come. But in this case the end itself is evil, as well as the means. The subjugation of the States to Negro domination would be worse than the military despotism under which they are now suffering.

[...]
It is not proposed merely that they shall govern themselves, but that they shall rule the white race, make and administer State laws, elect Presidents and members of Congress, and shape to a greater or less extent the future destiny of the whole country. Would such a trust and power be safe in such hands?

This is the historical background leading to Johnson's impeachment by the Congress, and the history-making vote in the Senate dramatized in this Sunday's installment of Radio Memories, below. Keep the above record in mind as you listen to the demonizing of the "Radical Republicans", determined to right the wrongs of history and establish the equal rights so long denied so many citizens of the Republic of the United States of America.

History is story, based on memory. Memory is faulty, in need of constant renewal; lack of such refreshing of memory in this case has resulted the story of President Andrew Johnson's impeachment becoming distorted like a funhouse mirror, re-shaped to serve the pressing political needs of the present age.

In his mammoth 1,200-page chronicle of another President Johnson, "The Years Of Lyndon Johnson Vol 3: Master Of The Senate", Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer Robert A. Caro describes the 1865-1868 period as "[f]our years of struggle between a Congress dominated by Radical Republicans determined to solidify the equality of races and humble the Confederacy and a President more interested in reconciliation than revenge..." [page 24]

"Reconciliation", indeed. But, it's the "story" that we all know, the faulty memory we seem fated to remember.

Another author, Bruce Bartlett, recently revisited the historical record to refresh his, and our, memory on this chapter of North America's story. Bartlett summarizes his findings on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson as follows:

"The textbooks still portray Johnson as the injured party and Republicans as the bully -- using extra-constitutional methods to usurp presidential power.
In fact, Congress had ample grounds for impeachment. It's mistake was in believing that it had to find Johnson guilty of violating the law to justify removing him from office, rather than simply saying that Johnson was not doing his job properly and removing him for that reason. But Johnson hadn't really broken the law, and the specific grounds upon which the House based impeachment were extremely weak. The Senate was right not to convict on them."
["Wrong On Race", Chapter 2, page 37]

The 1868 Presidential election was won by Republican candidate (and former US General) Ulysses S Grant; when the 15th Amendment was passed the following year, guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race. The last gasp of Reconstruction occurred in 1875, with the passing of Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Benjamin Butler's Civil Rights Act, legislation designed to curb the ongoing discrimination against blacks in the South.

Unfortunately the many Republican attempts to bring equal rights to blacks in the South were undone in 1876, with the election of the next GOP President, Rutherford B. Hayes. The world got to hear quite a bit about the Hayes-Tilden disputed election of 1876 as it witnesed the disputed Bush-Gore election of 2000; what we didn't hear much about, was the compromise agreed upon to help resolve the deadlock in various southern state legislatures. Federal troops stationed in the former Confederate states were finally withdrawn, and with them went the will to enforce the various anti-discrimination measures enacted by the Republican-dominated Congress over the previous decade. In their place came the Jim Crow segregation policies, poverty, illiteracy, and misery that characterized the Democratic "solid south" record on race for almost a full century.

It took another Civil War, this time within the Democratic Party itself, to finally see the stirrings of conscience, the beginnings of justice, and the promise of peace.

In fact, broadcast as it was in the aftermath of the 1948 Presidential election, the listeners to this show would have been familiar with the latest Democratic Party split: the formation of the States Rights Democratic Party, or "Dixiecrats"... southern Democrats determined to preserve the "southern way of life" in the face of Democrat President Truman's stalled efforts to finally, finally, see a country where every citizen could vote.

And could rightfully say, as he looked in his mirror, that he presided over the Land of the Free.




Previous 2010 Radio Memories posts:

Great Gildersleeve: 1947 Easter show
Lux Radio Theater: Hitler's Children
Biography In Sound: The Story Of Science Fiction
Mr President: Romance In The White House
Frontier Fighters: George Pickett
Destination Freedom: Citizen Toussaint [Toussaint L'Ouverture]
Ports Of Call: Haiti

For a list of our 2009 Radio Memories listings, go here.

UPDATE: Obama Doesn't Call It "Change.Gov" For Nothing!

All of a sudden, without fanfare or explanation, the official website for President-elect Barack Obama has changed its mandatory hopes for kids in school and citizens of all ages.

In our post Serving Obama, we quoted the vaguely worded plan outlined at the Obama campaign's post-campaign website for requiring community service:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

Now, after a day or so of internet furor, the plan has been changed:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Is Obama going to be this easy to push around, or was the original plan merely a hasty and poorly-worded post? Having made my share of those over the years, I can sympathize!

It's going to be an interesting four years...

[Hat tip to Truepeers for alerting me of the update, and Hot Air for the details..]

Update On Teacher Ridiculing Children In Class For Not Supporting Obama

Wow, that was quick..! The superintendent of the school that employs the teacher that we blogged about last night, has himself now seen the eyebrow-raising indoctrination and intimidation being passed off as neutral political commentary under his watch, and has issued a YouTube video of his own, explaining his response to this discovery:



Here it is, as a written statement:

I was shocked when I saw the clip of an interaction between a Cumberland County Schools teacher and her students as posted on YouTube. While neutral discussion of the political process is appropriate, at no time, particularly with elementary students, should a teacher infuse his/her political views into the discussion. Most disconcerting was the military slant that made its way into this discussion. We are a military community, serving over 15,000 military students and their families. We value the sacrifices, not only of the military parents but also those of their families.

We believe that military children are our children, military spouses are many of our employees, and military service men and women are our heroes. We proudly serve our military children and have received national awards for our support of military families.

I was particularly disturbed to see the uncomfortable position in which our children were placed due to the inappropriate actions of one of our teachers. Please be assured that the actions exhibited in this video are not consistent with the vision of the CCS. Moreover, the actions of one teacher do not represent the 7000 employees in our organization.

Once the video was brought to my attention, I immediately launched an investigation. Personnel laws prevent me from releasing information regarding individual employees and personnel action taken. I can assure you that upon completion of the investigation, I will take appropriate action.

Dr. William Harrison
CCS' Superintendent

Here's the now-famous video of how North Carolina kids were being taught about the 2008 Presidential Election campaign:

Serving Obama

From President-Elect Barack Obama's official website, an announcement of how our American neighbors are going to be made to spend their free time:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Hope and Change!

[Hat tip Gateway Pundit]

(To be fair, this other page says that "service" will be demanded only from high school and college students. So why say "citizens of all ages"..? And what's to be the definition of "community service"..?)

Meanwhile, an appaling glimpse into American education: a scandinavian documentary presents a North Carolina elementary school teacher so enamored with Barack Obama that she sees nothing wrong with how she treats the handful of pro-McCain children in her classroom, particularly the little girl with a parent serving in the military:



What else is going on in American classrooms, that we don't get to see..?

[Hat tip: Blackfive]

"Political Differences Cut Only So Deep..."

"Gratitude" is a dirty word in today's What-Have-You-Done-For-Me-Lately culture.

"Civility" is also a disappearing virtue as our undisciplined, self-centered and short-sighted society no longer values the effort involved in, or sees the long-term benefit of, Agreeing To Disagree.

No matter which candidate wins in today's US Presidential election, no matter what political party emerges on top or on the bottom, I will live in the hope that we have not fallen so far that we can't still learn to act as this fellow did, back in 1997. If one person can change for the better, I always take it as a sign that we all can..:

... By 7:30 we were on the road, and [John McCain] was reminiscing about his early political career. When he was elected to the House in 1982, he said, he was "a freshman right-wing Nazi." But his visceral hostility toward Democrats generally was quickly tempered by his tendency to see people as individuals and judge them that way.

He was taken in hand by Morris Udall, the Arizona congressman who was the liberal conscience of the Congress and a leading voice for reform. ...

"Mo reached out to me in 50 different ways," McCain recalled. "Right from the start, he'd say: 'I'm going to hold a press conference out in Phoenix. Why don't you join me?' All these journalists would show up to hear what Mo had to say. In the middle of it all, Mo would point to me and say, 'I'd like to hear John's views.' Well, hell, I didn't have any views. But I got up and learned and was introduced to the state."

Four years later, when McCain ran for and won Barry Goldwater's Senate seat, he said he felt his greatest debt of gratitude not to Goldwater—who had shunned him—but to Udall. "There's no way Mo could have been more wonderful," he says, "and there was no reason for him to be that way."

For the past few years, Udall has lain ill with Parkinson's disease in a veterans hospital in Northeast Washington, which is where we were heading. Every few weeks, McCain drives over to pay his respects. These days the trip is a ceremony, like going to church, only less pleasant. Udall is seldom conscious, and even then he shows no sign of recognition. ...

One wall of Udall's hospital room was cluttered with photos of his family back in Arizona; another bore a single photograph of Udall during his season with the Denver Nuggets, dribbling a basketball. Aside from a congressional seal glued to a door jamb, there was no indication what the man in the bed had done for his living. Beneath a torn gray blanket on a narrow hospital cot, Udall lay twisted and disfigured. No matter how many times McCain tapped him on the shoulder and called his name, his eyes remained shut.

A nurse entered and seemed surprised to find anyone there, and it wasn't long before I found out why: Almost no one visits anymore. In his time, which was not very long ago, Mo Udall was one of the most-sought-after men in the Democratic Party. Yet as he dies in a veterans hospital a few miles from the Capitol, he is visited regularly only by a single old political friend, John McCain. "He's not going to wake up this time," McCain said.

On the way out of the parking lot, McCain recalled what it was like to be a nobody called upon by a somebody. As he did, his voice acquired the same warmth that colored Russell Feingold's speech when he described the first call from John McCain. "When you called Feingold … " I started to ask him. But before I could, he interrupted. "Yeah," he says, "I thought of Mo." And then, for maybe the third time that morning, McCain spoke of how it affected him when Udall took him in hand. It was a simple act of affection and admiration, and for that reason it meant all the more to McCain. It was one man saying to another, We disagree in politics but not in life. It was one man saying to another, party political differences cut only so deep. Having made that step, they found much to agree upon and many useful ways to work together. This is the reason McCain keeps coming to see Udall even after Udall has lost his last shred of political influence.

The politics were never all that important.

Obama's Army

"We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."



(Full speech here)

Please, America, vote against Obama.

"The Grave Is Not The Goal..."

The US election has been really getting to me lately. I needed some serious cheering up yesterday, and got it at Mass, ironically through a sermon on death.

I find it hard to resist the idea that no matter who wins the election Tuesday, we all lose. So how to remain optimistic about The Day After? Ultimately we have two choices, don't we: to live in hope, or to live in despair. No matter what we do day to day on stage, we all share the same last act: a cold grave. So how to live happily ever after? I see our old, old dog, wracked with age, and I can see what lies in the near future for him, as he approaches his last Christmas with us. It's the same future in store for us all. So why try to accomplish anything, if it all turns to dust?

How to live in hope of a better future, when the present seems so grim?

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if there's one thing I've come to understand on my uphill climb it's that, whether we are happy or sad, whether we are living in hope or in despair, both are ultimately our personal choice. Whether you're picking one or the other, both involve struggle, an exhausting battle with ourselves, within ourselves, to force us to see everything there is to see, leaving nothing out because it might affect the image we expect to find. I work with a colleague who is relentless in seeing the worst in every situation, such is his supreme negativity, and I can see the immense effort this takes, to sustain that kind of overwhelmingly negative and pessimistic point of view. He has to work damn hard to refute my little observations of the good shining all around him. Just as, these days, I have to work equally hard to continue summoning some light at the end of the tunnel.

To move towards the light, to live in hope, to choose to be positive, is not to live a lie, through selective reasoning and clouded judgement. Doubt is necessary to faith, for what else sharpens our wits and exercises the mind sufficiently so that our perception skills are at their peak proficiency for the task at hand: not just to look, but to see, as far as the eye can see... even straining to see a far-off time and place beyond the grave, by placing death in the middle, rather than at the end.

From the pulpit yesterday I was treated to a poem whose stirring message could not have come at a better time for those of us wondering about our tomorrows. What better medicine could there be, what better incentive could there be, to help us dream of a more pleasant Day After Tomorrow..?

Tell me not in mournful numbers,
"Life is but an empty dream!"
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
"Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
"Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us further than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world's broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!

Trust no Future, howe'er pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act -- act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God o'erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o'er life's solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labour and to wait.

H. W. Longfellow
A Psalm Of Life

Sympathy For The Devil: Bill Ayers' Approval Rating

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' says former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in his 2001 book Fugitive Days.

When New York Times reporter Dinita Smith interviewed Ayers about his new book for an article published on September 11, 2001, he admitted:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

...
He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.

Even more chilling was Ayers response to a question about whether he would bomb again.

''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

So what to make of a recent Rasmussen poll, identifying a number as large as 13% who can somehow hold "favorable" views about this callous, unrepentant terrorist bomber?

...
[William Ayers], now a college professor in Chicago, was part of a domestic terrorist group in the 1960s and remains unrepentant for his activities during that era. Just 13% of American voters have a favorable opinion of him while 62% hold an unfavorable view. Twenty-five percent (25%) don’t know enough to have an opinion either way.

Among political liberals, 25% have a favorable opinion of him while 44% give Ayers negative reviews. Seventy-three percent (73%) have an unfavorable opinion of Ayers, including 59% with a Very Unfavorable opinion.
...

It boggles the mind; after all that's been revealed about this awful man, there are still so many people who can, somehow, like him. Rasmussen tries to dampen the bad news by introducing it with a "just", but the revelation that "just" a little more than one out of ten Americans can find room to morally accomodate this man's evil is one out of ten too many.

Is this sympathy for the devil the result of their paying attention, and approving of what they learn? Or is this from not paying attention at all, reflecting simply the knee-jerk reaction of one out of four liberals that if Ayers also wants to spread the wealth around, then it follows by extention that he must be a fine fellow.

"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
___ King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)

The Blind Faith Of Politics As Religion And... Romance?

Louis Farrakhan said the following at a February speech to a nation of islam convention...

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said. “And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

The person to whom Farrakhan was referring, made a campaign speech in New Hampshire this weekend, where he "humbly" vowed to change the world:

"I want you to believe," said the candidate, clad in an open-necked shirt and barn jacket. "Not so much believe just in me but believe in yourselves. Believe in the future. Believe in the future we can build together. I'm confident together we can't fail."

There was a carnival atmosphere among the crowd of some 4,000, who almost drowned Mr Obama out as he reached his crescendo and said: "I promise you. We won't just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we're going to change the country and change the world."

After the event, a 69-year old supporter gushed: "We feel we're on the brink of a whole new life in this country".

Ain't that the truth...

Thomas Sowell's latest column helps to clarify the new trend, by revealing its roots in the most ancient of human behavior: love.

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short:
"You don't like him and I do!" she said.

End of discussion.

Those last two sentences sum up what politics have become in the New Age of Obama. You can't get into a meaty political discussion without it turning into an attempt to convert someone to another religion, and they won't convert because they are, quite literally, in love with their candidate.

Well, just as true faith makes room to include doubts, true love involves truly seeing what one is looking at, warts and all. "Blind Faith" is to leave stuff out; true faith, like true love, keeps things in, good and bad, exhausting our reason and judgement by forcing us to constantly re-examine the good in light of the bad, our hopes in light of our doubts.

In his autobiography "Mark It And Strike It", comedian Steve Allen explained why his first marriage failed so miserably:

"We were in love with the idea of being in love, and not really in love with each other".

I think that's an even better way to summarize the 2008 US Presidential election.

Clever Horses And Accurate Polls

Fascinating article today from Zombie about Clever Hans, political polling, normative conformity and the potential effect that behavior from the likes of this fellow will have on voters in the upcoming US Presidential election.

Zombie's essay includes a recreation of the Asch experiment, and it reminds me ever so much of listening to people at work talking about politics...:

Enraged Obama Fan Beats Woman With Stick For Supporting McCain In NY

He beat her with a stick. He saw her McCain signs, and that was enough to make him go berserk. She was a petite, middle-aged woman volunteering for the McCain/Palin ticket, and this big tough Obama supporter took her measure, and evidently decided: "There's only one response to this". And so on Lexington Street, in mid-town Manhattan, on September 15 of this year, he ended up beating her over the head with a stick because of her political views.

Pajamas Media carries the story today, including the district attorney’s complaint:

“Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

The Silent Majority gives more details of the victim's side of the story:

“He tore up a McCain campaign sign (unprovoked) and then took the stick from the sign and HIT me across the side of my head and face when I reached for our sign.
...
I reached for the torn sign and he started beating me with the stick about my head and face as I tried to stop the blows with my right hand.
While I put my glasses back on my face, the attacker and started down the stairs to the subway. I followed him yelling that he should be stopped. He grew calm and stopped only when he saw that I had found two police officers at the end of the stairs to the subway. I pursued him even though I was still stunned from the attack. I had been hit across the head and face with a stick by a red-in-face stranger who was screaming “You people are ridiculous” (Over and over.)”

Imagine what his reaction will be should Obama lose in November...

Brother, Can You Spare Some Change

I've had occasion to do a lot of thinking about the subject of personal initiative lately. Since it's on my mind anyway, maybe that's why I feel I keep encountering more of it than usual in my news reading.

You might have heard about this story, from a few weeks ago...

An Illinois Girl Scout troop leader took some initiative to teach her 2nd-grade girls about the current US Presidential election. She contacted both campaigns to ask for some free materials, like buttons or signs, to give to the 7-year olds as learning aids.

John McCain's campaign responded immediately, sending her several campaign stickers and signs. But the Obama campaign..?

The troop leader said she called Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters and explained why she needed the curios. Walsh said she was directed to Obama's Web site—where she could buy all the buttons and posters she wanted. On the Web, a packet of 50 stickers that say "Obama '08" goes for $5; a yard sign is $8. "Got Hope?" bumper stickers are $3 each, or two for $5.

Walsh found the prices a bit exorbitant her small group. She said she asked Obama's campaign worker again if she could get a few items for free. She pointed out that McCain's camp had agreed to send a box and, well, her 12-member Scout troop runs on a very small budget.

Walsh said the woman at Obama's headquarters put her on hold. After a few minutes, she returned with the same answer. The woman told her that she sympathized, but the Obama campaign needs every penny it can get, Walsh said. "She said, 'We're up against the machine and we just can't hand anything out for free,' " Walsh said. "She was very nice . . . but I wasn't getting anything.

She did eventually get something, to be honest; when the media started to report on the cold shoulder the scout leader had initially received, the embarrassed Obama campaign showered her with more than she asked for, right down to a personal letter from The One, Himself. Apparently it was all a terrible mistake.

It's interesting to note what happened, or should I say, what didn't happen, at the Democratic election headquarters during that fateful phone call.

1) The person who took the call apparently didn't think ahead and ponder the potential public relations consequences of her uncharitable response. A campaign that had succeeded in raising over $55 million in the month of August alone can't afford to spare ten bucks worth of pins and posters, for girl scouts? The campaign worker didn't think, "Won't the average voter think we're stingy unless we help the girl scout troup?" Doesn't the staffer believe in long-term thinking, that actions may have consequences?

2) The person who took the call brings the problem to her supervisor. Now, maybe it was or maybe it wasn't the official policy of the staff to honor all requests like this one for small donations of free stuff. Let's say the supervisor was sincere and he truly believed that it wasn't part of their policy to help people like this girl scout troup leader; why doesn't that supervisor simply say to himself, "You know, the stuff that we're being asked for only costs about $10 or $20, why don't I just pay for this out of my own pocket. My bosses will never know about it, but it would make the candidate look good if his supporters behave charitably... maybe I should just help her myself." Yet that didn't happen.

3) The person who took the call is told by her supervisor not to give a single penny's worth of free stuff to the caller. Why doesn't she then say to herself, "You know, maybe I can just send the campaign trinkets myself... I'm not making very much working here, but if I take up a quick collection from my pals on these phone banks, we should easily come up with enough to make a difference for these kids... it might mean one less coffee today, or tomorrow, but it's for a good cause, plus it will make the campaign look good...I can gather that stuff on my next lunch hour." That initiative didn't materialize, either; it didn't occur to her to take matters into her own hands and try and make a difference.

Today I read of another display of personal initiative. Columnist Dinesh D'souza had established a fund to collect donations for Barack Obama's half-starving half-brother in Kenya. He's raised $1,000 in contributions, and is adding an extra grand of his own money to that amount:

Here are the facts about George Obama. He’s in his twenties. He lives in a slum in a hut. He wants to become a mechanic but doesn’t have the money. He reports that he gets by on a dollar a month. ... He said when people notice he has the same name as Barack Obama, he denies they are related because he is “ashamed.” The Democratic presidential candidate, who made $4 million last year, hasn’t lifted a finger to help his half-brother.
...
I specifically asked people to send gifts of $5, $10 and $25. The reason is that even a relatively modest sum by American standards is a considerable sum by Kenyan standards. George Obama has said that he is living on a dollar a month. This seems an impossible sum to survive on, so I checked the poverty line in Kenya. According to United Nations estimates, it’s around $100 a year. By this measure, our little fund has provided for George for 20 years. Alternatively, George can move out of his 6 foot-by-10-foot hut and into a more comfortable dwelling. He can also get the training he needs to become a mechanic.

The Kenya newspaper The Daily Nation is outraged at the existence of the George Obama Compassion Fund, and in an opinion piece published over the weekend, they lash out at D'souza for yet another "low" in the US Presidential election. The writer (who is an editor for the United Nations) points to Obama's first of two autobiographies for evidence that he is not self-centered, and that he has room in his heart for others... room enough for everyone:

[Senator Obama] understands that the condition of being poor is not a crime, as some Republicans would have us believe.

But it is a result of global and national forces, which he is seeking to change, not just for the sake of young men like George (whose only fault, he writes, was that he was “born on the wrong side of our father’s cloven world”), but for all the world’s underprivileged people, who remain silent and ashamed of who they are because the world tells them they will never be good enough.

...Obama dared to think of family as all those, regardless of race, tribe or nation, who are committed to a particular “moral course”.

He sees himself not just as someone who can uplift the lives of his immediate family or the people of the US, but as someone who puts the world on a path where not just his half-brother George will have a chance to improve his life and expect justice, but where everyone on this planet will have a reason to hope for a better world.

... He realised early on his career that gaining individual power for himself was futile because “without power for the group, a group larger even, than an extended family, our success always threatened to leave others behind. And perhaps it was that fact that left me so unsettled – the fact that even here, in Africa, the same maddening patterns held sway; that no-one here could tell me what my blood ties demanded or how those demands could be reconciled with some larger idea of human association.”

So it doesn't occur to the man running as the Democratic party's Presidential Candidate that he could spare a hundred dollars and change his half-brother's life for the better, for a while? Must it be total change, for everyone, or else no change, for anyone? Why not spare some change, for some... for one?

Maybe Senator Obama believes in all-or-nothing absolutes, and wants to wait until he's in a position to help every single person before he begins helping any one person. Fortunately, not every American is paralyzed by such deferment of personal initiative. Thankfully for George Obama, and the uncountable millions of others like him around the world whose stories we rarely hear about, some Americans can imagine what it's like to live in a tragic and flawed world, and believe not just in good and bad, they also believe in better and worse... in progress.

These Americans have the hope that they can be agents of change, helping one life at a time, one chance at a time, instead of every life all at once, forevermore, with just one chance... Americans like this donor to the George Obama Compassion Fund:

"I wish I had a brother, or even a step-brother. George is not my relative and not my race or religion but I still want to contribute to his welfare."

First Past The Post But Last Through The Gate

Surely, a new low in hatred against Sarah Palin, as a stand-up comedian antes up $25,000 as the starting bribe for Governor Palin's pregnant daughter to abort her baby:

Please consider my offer as time is of the essence. You don't want this child, the father certainly doesn't want this child and the world doesn't need another wailing mouth to feed.

He tempts her with the siren song of personal experience; he once had a girlfriend who aborted their child, adding a tragic cost to the old expression of "free time" and a ghoulish nuance to the term "disposable income":

We made the right choice and rather than end up bitter rivals in court battles over custody or support, we are great friends who high-five over our decision and have all the free time and disposable income that young mothers never know.

The comedian rallies like-minded troops at his blog with what must be an alluring hook for his fellow-believers:

If you really care about the environment, one abortion does more than any hybrid car or a lifetime of recycling. ... Do the right thing... Empty the chamber.

The comedian is so dedicated to his beliefs that he plans on continuing to spread his message from beyond the grave:

... in my will, I shall have a good portion of my estate turned into the Sarah J Palin Abortion Fund that will help girls from all walks of life from destroying their lives and our natural resources by having children.

The comedian frames his website's offer around a photoshoped image of Palin's daughter cradling a bag of money instead of a baby, and what better revelation could there be for how this materialistic comedian sees his fellow human beings: as things, not people, bearing only costs, without accruing benefits.

Again and again, his statements reveal his obsession with, and ultimately his love of, money; in his view, for there to be one more person seated at the table means amounts only to a smaller serving for himself. I say love of money, rather than love of self; for if he really loved himself, is this truly the position that he would take on bringing new life into the world... and what he would do with his beloved money?

Once upon a time, there was a young child who shared this comedian's starkly limited vision of the world and its potential riches. After six glorious years as the center of his family's attention, the youngster suddenly found himself sharing the spotlight with a young sister. Starting that winter, Christmas would see two groups of presents under the tree, one for him and one for the sister; sadly, his limited mind, a mind closed by limited experiences, saw much less than what was really going on around him. The new arrival needed more, and so received more, while with him needing less he consequently received his due as well. Justice was done to both, but his self-serving point of view, narrowed by his youth, made it seem as if one was being rewarded at the expense of the other.

Thankfully, little by little, as the young fellow grew in age, his perception grew as well. There were many burdens that he began to shoulder, from developing sufficiently sharp eyes and quick reflexes so that he could prevent his sister from eating dirt while both played in the backyard, to learning the patience involved in helping her learn to tie her shoes, then later lessening her fears by explaining what's involved in attending school, and more... so much more, that through these tests even his simple mind began to see the sense in filling more seats around the family's table: through helping her it was really him who was being helped.

The more that was asked of him, the more of him there seemed to give. And most importantly, the greater the sacrifices he seemed to make, the more he saw himself receiving, in his turn: a single smile of gratitude did much to repay an afternoon's expenditure of time and attention, more than he ever would have imagined possible, back at that first shocking Christmas. Such smiles, he recognized, brought more joy to him than any Christmas present ever did. Even though he was the oldest, the younger sister was the true teacher. He arrived first, but acquired wisdom last.

He may have started off as one blind to the feast that was to come, but eventually he couldn't avoid observing that the more he served others, the more he felt that he was the one truly being served.

It took the young chap many years to escape his limited world view, to finally see the blessings brought to his world by the presence of a younger sister. With each breath she brought to life physical proof of the infinite resources available for that most precious of riches: love. It took too long for him to learn that living life with his sibling revealed he was not loved half as much, but equally, meaning that his parents' capacity for sacrificial love had been doubled, not divided.

Today, as the not-so-young brother's hair shows spots of grey, the niece and nephews his sister brought into the world teach him the lesson anew... seeing the oldest take care of the youngest, taking pride in the new responsibilities and expectations thrust upon him, and learning how in great giving there can be great gains. His faith in the existence of this paradox is renewed, through the new generation of "wailing mouths to feed".

If such important lessons can be learned from one sibling to another, how much greater can the education be between parent and child? For in that relationship there are demands for even greater sacrifices... and through the greater service, the chance to witness even greater love.

For the comedian who tries to deny others a seat at the table, falsely believing that in so doing his own slim portions may increase, the joke is ultimately on him: in the long run he'll lose far more than he'd ever have gotten.

For the last will be first and the first will be last.

[Hat Tip to Dave Hartline of the Catholic Report]

Peaking Behind The Curtain

What a hoot: check out this very funny, and extremely clever, three-minute comment on how the leftwing bloggers and the left-leaning media seem to work hand-in-talon these days in their desperate smearing of Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin:



[Hat Tip to Tammy Bruce]

And another one, this time top-secret footage from inside Obama's campaign headquarters revealing how The Chosen One is dealing with his unexpected competition:



[Thanks to Copious Dissent]

For Obama's VP, Charity Begins At Home

Obama's Vice Presidential running mate, Senator Joe Biden, really believes in charity. The Democratic candidate released his tax papers last Friday to prove it.

From 1998 through 2007, Biden earned a total of $2,450,042, averaging $245,000 a year. Of that amount, he gave $3,690 to charity.

Not bad... that's about 2% of his income, and that's supposed to be the average that each household manages to donate each year.

Oh, wait a minute... that's three thousand dollars donated to charity, over the last ten years combined.

To take Biden’s worst year, 1999, one percent of his adjusted gross income would have been $2,100. One half of one percent would have been $1,050. One quarter of one percent would have been $525. One eighth of one percent would have been $262. And one sixteenth of one percent would have been $131 — still a bit more than the Bidens gave.

To take Biden’s best year, 2007, one percent of his adjusted gross income would have been $3,190. One half of one percent would have been $1,595. One quarter of one percent would have been $797 — a figure Biden surpassed by nearly $200.

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

Let us never forget that no less a figure than Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, said this on May 22, 2005's episode of Meet The Press during an interview with the late Tim Russert:

I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. I'm not going to be lectured as a Democrat--we've got some pretty strong moral values in my party, and maybe we ought to do a better job standing up and fighting for them. Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.

Now I understand why Joe Biden's party remain so determined to raise taxes, election after election... the motivation triggering their thinking is on display for all to see:

"How else would the poor and hungry ever get any charitable support?"

I Agree With The Democrats

I had come to believe that there was no longer much common ground between the current Democratic Party and my own political views. I certainly used to feel at home with them, many years ago, but as I followed their response to the last decade of changes across our world, my faith in their wisdom and judgment subsided... to say the least.

Yet, I'm man enough to admit when I've made a mistake.

I owe them an apology, for a lot of the bad things I've said about them in recent times. It seems that I do, indeed, retain much in common with the Democrats, after all. Shows what happens when you take the time to listen, to actually listen, to what the "other side" is saying, to get first-hand, straight-from-the-source information, rather than listen to someone merely telling you what it is that someone said. Shame on me for forgetting: "you're not always right, they're not always wrong."

This video provides many examples of sincere sentiments expressed by former President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, even Barack Obama, that I find myself nodding along with in complete, genuine, agreement.

Presidential Quiz

Here's a fun, short quiz for my fellow American History buffs, courtesy the Chicago Tribune:

Know Your Presidents

I found it a pretty challenging test; I scored 13 out of 15, giving me 86%. Some really good questions, I thought; "They really expect their readers to be well-versed in Presidential trivia!", I even said to myself half-way through. Boy, was I naive.

When I was done, I looked around the site to see if there might be similar history tests I could take. (There are) I quickly noticed a link to an article called "Presidential Portraits", which I was supposed to go through first, evidently, because the biographies of the Presidents listed there GIVE ALL THE ANSWERS to the US Presidents test.

Sheesh! What a letdown. I guess it's meant to be a test of one's reading comprehension more than one's basic historical knowledge.

So you can either take the test in the Chicago way, by studying the answers ahead of time, or just plunge into the test, as a raw measurement of your Presidential lore.

Obama The Commander-In-Chief

This cheered me up:

(Thanks to James at Sanctus, for a well-needed laugh)

Efficiency Run Amok..?

Who says that Hillary Clinton has no respect for the working class?

Here is a sign that she is especially sensitive to the long hours the low-level journalists spend waiting for sudden, breaking news on the campaign trail.

These reporters covering primary returns in Austin, Texas have been placed by the Clinton campaign in the most convenient spot imagineable: right in the Berger Activity Center men's locker room..!

(Hat Tip to Pal2Pal for flagging this strange-but-true CNN story...)

Democrats: Now Your Choice Is Clear

We haven't been blogging much on the US Presidential elections here at Covenant Zone -- it's a bit out of our bailiwick.

But I can't pass up the chance to comment on this week's Big News from the Democratic campaign:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama has been endorsed by British parliamentarian George Galloway:

How Obama Has Given America A Reason To Believe

"...my guess is America is looking for real change, and only Barack Obama represents that."

This is a major set-back for the other front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the Galloway endorsement for Obama casts serious doubts on Clinton's anti-american credentials, to the point where she may have to write off the anti-american wing of the democratic party, and search for primary votes elsewhere.
Maybe Madame Clinton, in her desperation, would consider a change (if you'll pardon the expression) and tack a little more... to the right.

To help her get her bearings, I've assembled a little promotional video on her behalf, which I hope will, in its own modest way, manage to rescue America from a Presidency beloved by the likes of George Galloway.

I call it: "Stay to the right":