The Subway Canaries

The Pink Flamingo Has Moved – Finally!

SJ Reidhead — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:59:01 +0000

NOW POSTING AT THE NEW SITE

I have officially moved The Pink Flamingo to the new address: thepinkflamingoblog.com. Until we can figure out a way to migrate the Blogware materials to the new site, I am using this one as an archive. I will be doing some furniture – moving at the new site for awhile, but cross-posting is a pain and I just need to force myself to use the Word Press site. I have found it is easier for people to make comments at the new site.

Word Press Problems Being Solved – Cat Disaster Looming

SJ Reidhead — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:30:36 +0000

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22

Press Harbor and I are now friends. We're getting the problems solved to the point where I hope to stop posting here at the Blog Harbor site in the next few days! I've hired professional help for the rest of the “move”. I'm trying to move my Wyatt Earp Books site to Press Harbor, but it seems like we have some problems with Yahoo.

CAT HEART-ACHE
Something is seriously wrong with Little Joe Cartwright. He is constantly picking fights with Bat Masterson to the point where Bat is a mess, and a total wreck. I've started to notice that Little Joe is now going after the other cats. Last night he jumped Rumseld who was trying to come between he and Bat. I'm going to be forced to take him down to the vet next week. I have reached the point where I am actually afraid of him. I don't like the way he looks. He no longer grooms himself, etc. This is an indication of some serious physical problem. I think we all know what the outcome is going to be.

THE CHAMBERS BOOK OF DAYS

Born: Professor Dugald Stewart, celebrated metaphysician, 1753, Edinburgh.
Died: Pope John XXIII, 1419, Florence; Robert, Lord Clive, founder of the British empire in India, 1774, Moreton Say, near Drayton; John Stackhouse, botanist, 1819, Bath; Francois le Valliant, African traveller, 1824, La Neve, near Lauzun; Sir Henry Havelock, Indian general, 1857, Lucknow; Professor George Wilson, author of various scientific works, 1859, Edinburgh; Father Lacordaire, eminent French preacher, 1861, Loreze.
Feast day: Saints Philemon and Appia. St. Cecilia, or Cecily, virgin and martyr, 230. St. Theodorus the Studite, abbot, 9th century.

ROBIN HOOD

Much controversy has prevailed with respect to this celebrated outlaw, and the difficulty, or rather impossibility, of now obtaining any information regarding his history that can be relied on as authentic, will, in all likelihood, render him ever a subject for debate and discussion among antiquaries. The utmost attainment that can reasonably be expected in such a matter, is the being enabled, through a judicious consideration and sifting of collateral evidence, to draw some credible inference, or establish some well grounded probability.

The commonly received belief regarding Robin Hood is, that he was the captain of a band of robbers or outlaws, who inhabited the forest of Sherwood, in Nottinghamshire, and also the woodlands of Barnsdale, in the adjoining West Riding of Yorkshire. They supported themselves by levying toll on wealthy travellers, more especially ecclesiastics, and also by hunting the deer and wild animals of the forest. Great generosity is ascribed to Robin, who is represented as preying only on the wealthy and avaricious, whilst he carefully eschewed all attacks on poor people or women, and was ever ready to succour depressed innocence and worth by his purse as well as his sword and bow. He is recorded to have cherished a special enmity towards the sheriff of Nottinghamshire, whom, on one occasion, under the guise of a butcher, and pretending that he had some horned cattle to dispose of, he entrapped into the forest of Sherwood, and only released on the payment of a swinging ransom. Bishops and rich ecclesiastics were the objects of his especial dislike and exactions, but he was, nevertheless, a religiously disposed man, and never failed regularly to hear mass or perform his orisons. He even retained in his band a domestic chaplain, who has descended to posterity by the appellation of Friar Tuck, and been immortalised in Ivanhoe. The lieutenant of this renowned captain was a tall stalwart fellow called John Little, but whose name, for the sake of the ludicrous contrast it presented, was transposed into Little John. Other noted members of the band were William Scadlock, George a Green, and Much the miller's son. A mistress has also been assigned to Robin Hood, under the epithet of 'Maid Marian,' who followed him to the greenwood, and shared his dangers and toils.

The same popular accounts represent this gay outlaw as living in the period extending from the reign of Henry II, through those of Richard I and John, to that of Henry III We are informed that he was born at Locksley, in the county of Nottingham, about 1160; that from having dissipated his inheritance through carelessness and extravagance, he was induced to adopt the life of an outlaw in the forests; and that after having, with the band which he had collected around him, successfully conducted his predatory operations for a long course of years, and set all law and magistrates at defiance, he at last, in his eighty seventh year, felt the infirmities of age coming upon him, and was induced to enter the convent of Kirklees, in Yorkshire, to procure medical assistance. The prioress, who is described as a relation by some, an aunt of his own, was led, either through personal enmity or the instigation of another, to cause the death of Robin Hood, an object which she accomplished by opening a vein or artery, and allowing him to bleed to death. The date assigned to this event is November 1247.

It is stated that when Robin perceived the treachery which had been practised on him, he summoned all his remaining strength, and blew a loud blast on his bugle horn. The well known call reached the ears of his trusty lieutenant, Little John, who forthwith hastened from the adjoining forest, and arriving at the priory, forced his way into the chamber where his dying chieftain lay. The latter, according to the story in the ballad, makes the following request:

'Give me my bent bow in my hand,
And an arrow I'll let free,
And where that arrow is taken up,
There let my grave digged be.'

The bow being then put into his hands by Little John, Robin discharged it through the open casement, and the arrow alighted on a spot where, according to popular tradition, he was shortly afterwards buried. A stone, carved with a florid cross and an obliterated inscription, marks the place of sepulture, and the whole has been in recent times surrounded by an enclosure, as shewn in the accompanying engraving.

Robin Hood's grave

This probably genuine memorial of Robin Hood, is situated on the extreme edge of Kirklees Park, not far from Huddersfield. The site which it occupies is bold and picturesque, commanding an extensive view of what was formerly forest land, and which still displays clumps of gnarled oaks, scattered up and down, mingled with furze and scrub.

Finally, we are informed by several old ballads, and also by some writers of a later age, that this prince of robbers was no other than the Earl of Huntingdon, who, from misfortunes or his own mismanagement, had been compelled to adopt a predatory life.

The above statements, with many additions and variations by way of embellishment, are all set forth in the numerous ballads which profess to record the exploits of Robin Hood and his merry men. A collection of these, under the title of A Lytell Geste history of Robyn Hood, from a manuscript apparently of the latter end of the fourteenth century, was printed by Winkyn de Worde, one of the earliest English printers, about 1495. It forms the most satisfactory and reliable evidence that we possess of the life and deeds of the sylvan hero, and comprises one or two circumstances which, as we shall shortly see, go far to substantiate the fact of the actual existence of Robin Hood.

The Lytell Geste is divided into eight parts or fyttes, as they are called; the seventh of which, and part of the eighth, narrate an adventure of Robin with 'King Edward,' who, at the end of the sixth fytte, is styled 'Edwarde our comly kynge.' The only monarch of that name whom we can consistently believe to be here referred to, is the lighthearted and unfortunate Edward II, who is described as having immediately before made a progress through Lancashire. His father, Edward I, never was in Lancashire after he became king; and Edward III, if he was ever in that county at all, was certainly never there during the earlier years of his reign, whilst, as regards the subsequent years of his government, we have indisputable evidence that Robin Hood had by that time become a historical personage, or at all events an existence of the past. But with respect to Edward II, contemporary proof is furnished that in the autumn of the year 1323, and not long after the defeat and death of his great enemy and kinsman, the Earl of Lancaster, he made a progress through the counties of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Nottingham. Here a coincidence occurs between a historical fact and the incidents related in the ballad.

According to these last, King Edward having arrived at Nottingham, resolves forthwith on the extermination of Robin Hood and his band, to whose depredations he imputes the great diminution that had lately taken place in the numbers of the deer in the royal forests. A forester undertakes to guide him to the haunts of the outlaw, and Edward and his train, disguised like monks certainly rather an unkingly masquerade; but Edward II had little kingliness about him set out for the place, and on the way thither are suddenly encountered by Robin and his men, to whom the pseudo abbot represents that he has only with him £40. The half of this he is obliged to give up, but is courteously permitted to retain the remaining moiety. After transacting this little matter of business, Robin invites the abbot and his party to dine with him an invitation doubtless not to be resisted in the circumstances. After dinner, a shooting match commences, and in course of this the real rank of the pretended abbot is discovered, and Robin, falling down on his knees, craves forgiveness for himself and retainers. The king grants it, but on condition that the outlaw chief shall quit his present mode of life, and accompany his sovereign to court, where he is promised a place in the royal household. To this he readily consents, and accompanies the king first to Nottingham, and afterwards to London, where, for nearly a year, he 'dwelled in the kynge's courte.'

Now it is at least a singular coincidence, that in the records of the household expenses of Edward II, preserved in Exchequer, the name of Robyn node occurs several times as a 'vadlet' or porter of the chamber in the period from the 25th of April to the 22nd of November 1324, but no mention of him occurs either previous to the former or subsequent to the latter of these dates. This was the very time during which, according to the ballad, Robin Hood lived at court. The following is the entry on the 22nd of November above referred to, which, on the assumption of the ballad hero and the person there named being the same individual, may be regarded as the latest historical record which we have of that personage. Robyn Hod jadys un des porteurs poar cas qil ne poait pluis travailler, de done par comandement vs. To Robin Hood, by command, owing to his being unable any longer to work, the sum of 5s. It is unnecessary to remind the reader, that such a sum represented in those days a much greater value than at the present time.

In the ballad under notice, we are informed that Robert, after having remained in the king's service for about a twelvemonth, became wearied of the court, and longed for the free and joyous life of Sherwood Forest. The king consents to let him go, but only for a short period a condition which Robin thoroughly disregards after regaining his liberty. Rapturously welcomed by his old associates, and reinstated as their leader, he continues for twenty two years to lead the life of a robber chief, and dies at last through treachery in Kirklees Priory, as already mentioned.

For the coincidences above related, between historical facts and the poetical narrative detailed by the compiler of the Lytell Geste, we are indebted to the researches of the late Rev. Joseph Hunter, who, in an ingenious tract, entitled The Ballad Hero, Robin Hood, has endeavoured, and we think not unsuccessfully, to vindicate the real existence of this renowned outlaw against the arguments of those who would represent him as a mere poetical abstraction or myth. To the latter view of his character, we shall now advert.

There is no tendency which has been more characteristic of the present century, than that of investigating the foundations by which historical records are supported, sifting the evidence adduced, and endeavouring by an analysis of the materials in the crucible of research, to eliminate whatever has been intermingled of fable or romance. Ruthless and unsparing has been the process, sweeping and stupendous, in many instances, the demolition thereby occasioned, but the results have in the main been beneficial, and the cause of truth, as well as the progress of human knowledge, been signally benefited. In some instances, however, it cannot be denied that this sceptical and overturning tendency has been carried to an extreme.

With a rashness, equivalent to the unhesitating faith which made our fathers accept as undoubted fact whatever they found recorded in ancient annals, our critical archeaologists of the present day seem not unfrequently to ignore, superciliously, all popular traditions or belief, and transfer, indiscriminately, to the region of myth or fable, the individuals whose actions form the subject of these popular histories. Such a fate has, with other heroes of folklore, been shared by the chieftain of Sherwood Forest. It has been maintained by many distinguished antiquaries, including Mr. T. Wright, in our own country, and Grimm in Germany, that Robin Hood is a mere fanciful abstraction, a poetical myth, or one amongst the personages of the early mythology of the Teutonic people. It has been gravely conjectured that his name, Robin Hood, is a corruption for Robin of the Wood, and that he is to be only regarded as a mythical embodiment of the spirit of unrestrained freedom and sylvan sport. The principal grounds on which this argument is maintained, are the absence of any direct historical evidence regarding him; the numbers of places in widely separated parts of the country, which are associated with him and bear his name; and a supposed resemblance between many of the circumstances related of him, and those recorded of various legendary personages throughout Europe.

Where parties have been led to form such views as those above indicated, it requires irrefragable evidence to convert them to an opposite way of thinking. And, doubtless, as far as regards Robin Hood, it is almost hopeless to expect that any more light than what we have hitherto obtained, will be procured to elucidate his history. But the whole weight of inferential evidence seems to he on the side of those who would retain the notion of his having been a real personage. There is nothing, as Mr. Hunter remarks, supernatural in the attributes or incidents recorded of him. These are nothing more than what can be supposed to have belonged, or happened to an English yeoman, skilled in all manly sports, more especially in the use of the bow, and naturally endowed with a generous and genial disposition. Much embellishment and romantic fiction has, doubtless, been superadded to his history; but that the leading features of it, as popularly detailed, rest at all events on a basis of fact, is, in our opinion, satisfactorily established.

It will be observed that Mr. Hunter, in fixing the reign of Edward II as the period in which Robin Hood flourished, departs from the commonly received notion, which represents him as living in the time of Richard I and John. In this view he is supported by all the evidence that can be gathered from actual documents, and also by the statements in the poem of the Lytell Geste; whilst the other notion has no ground to rest on beyond the vague and uncertain authority of tradition, or of chroniclers who wrote long after the events which they profess to record. And it may here also be mentioned, that in the period immediately following Robin Hood's supposed withdrawal from court, Mr. Hunter discovered, in the court rolls of the Manor of Wakefield, the name of a certain Robertus Hood, resident in that town, and a suitor in the manorial court. The adjoining district of Barnsdale, in the West Riding, was no less a haunt of Robin Hood and his followers, than Sherwood Forest, in Nottinghamshire. And another singular circumstance is, that the wife of this Robertus Hood is mentioned under the name of Matilda, the title given by some old ballads to Robin Hood's wife, who, however, exchanges it for Marian when she follows him to the forest.

The statement that Robin Hood was the Earl of Huntingdon, seems to rest mainly on an epitaph manufactured in after times, and on one or two obscure expressions found in ancient writers. Upon a flimsy foundation of this kind, Dr. Stukeley has built a regular genealogy of Robin Hood, representing his real name as Robert Fitzooth, Earl of Huntingdon. No reliance whatever can be placed on this view of the question, and it is certainly wholly opposed to the few items of historical evidence which have already been adduced.

The earliest demonstrable allusion to Robin Hood in English literature, occurs in Longland's Vision of Pierce Ploughman, a poem belonging to the middle of the fourteenth centiry. A character, allegorising Sloth, is represented as saying:

'I kan not perfitly my paternoster as the prest it sayeth,
But I kan rymes of Robyn Hode and Randolf, Earl of Chester.'

By thus coupling his name with that of the Earl of Chester, a real personage, this passage affords a presumption that Robin Hood was likewise no creation of the imagination. That the fact of his being mentioned at this date, discredits the argument of his having lived only a few years previously, cannot warrantably be maintained, seeing it was a perfectly common practice in the days of minstrelsy to celebrate the deeds of personages, actually living at the time, as well as of those who belonged to a former age.

Assuming Robin Hood and his band to have had a real existence, it becomes a matter of interesting speculation, to conjecture whether any peculiar circumstance in the history of the time can have given rise to this singular society in the forests of Nottinghamshire and the West Riding. M. Thierry, in his History of the Norman Conquest, has represented Robin Hood as the chief of a small body of Saxons, who, in these remote fastnesses, defied successfully the authority of the Norman sovereigns.

Another writer has imagined them to be a remnant of the followers of the celebrated Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, who was slain at the battle of Evesham. But Mr. Hunter's conjecture is at least as plausible as any that they were persons who had taken part in the rebellion against Edward II, of his cousin, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, which had been suppressed by the battle of Boroughbridge, in March 1322. A summary vengeance was taken on the earl, who, with a number of his most distinguished followers, was beheaded at his own castle of Pontefract. Many other chiefs were executed in different places. It is reasonable, however, to conjecture that numerous individuals who had taken part in the insurrection, would contrive to evade pursuit by retreating to remote fastnesses. In this way, a band like Robin Hood's might be formed. under the leadership of a bold and energetic captain. The immense popularity which the Earl of Lancaster enjoyed in the West Riding, will tend still further to explain the favour and goodwill with which Robin Hood and his followers seem to have been generally regarded by the peasantry. And a coincidence is thus established between the date of the battle and the progress of Edward II, already mentioned, in the autumn of the following year, through the northern counties of England.

The circumstance of so many places throughout the country bearing the name of Robin Hood such as Robin Hood's Hill, Robin Hood's Chair, Robin Hood's Bay, &c. is derived, with great probability, from the practice which prevailed both in England and Scotland, of celebrating on May day certain sports under the designation of Robin Hood Games. These consisted of a personation of the various characters, which, according to the popular ballads, made up the court or retinue of the king of Sherwood Forest. The reader will find a notice of them at p. 580 of the first volume of this work. From certain places being selected for the observance of these festivities, and also, it may be, from some renowned performer in the games having been connected with a particular locality, the name of Robin Hood has frequently, in all likelihood, been associated with places which he never once visited. Doubtless, however, one or two of these spots are of a more genuine character; such as the grave at Kirklees Priory, and, as Mr. Hunter is inclined to believe, the well, known as 'Robin Hood's Well,' a little to the north of Doncaster, on the Great North Road, leading from that town to Ferrybridge.

Remembering C. S. Lewis

SJ Reidhead — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:20:57 +0000

1889 – 1963

C. S. Lewis died the same day as did President John F. Kennedy. Perhaps the greatest Christian writer and thinker of the 20th Century,
he left a remarkable legacy of books, science, fiction, and fantasy.

FIVE TIPS FOR GOOD WRITING:

1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.

2. Always prefer the clean direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.

3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean “More people died” don’t say “Mortality rose.”

4. In writing, don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the things you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us the thing is “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers “Please, will you do my job for me.”

5. Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say “infinitely” when you mean “very”; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. [bold emphasis mine]

He was part of a remarkable liteary “group known simply as the Inklings.

“…Its most regular members (many of them academics at the University) included J. R. R. “Tollers” Tolkien, C. S. “Jack” Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams, Christopher Tolkien (J. R. R. Tolkien's son), Warren “Warnie” Lewis (C. S. Lewis's elder brother), Roger Lancelyn Green, Adam Fox, Hugo Dyson, R. A. “Humphrey” Havard, J. A. W. Bennett, Lord David Cecil, and Nevill Coghill. Other less frequent attenders at their meetings included Percy Bates, Charles Leslie Wrenn, Colin Hardie, James Dundas-Grant, John Wain, R. B. McCallum, Gervase Mathew, and C. E. Stevens. The author E. R. Eddison also met the group at the invitation of C. S. Lewis….”

C. S. LEWIS QUOTES

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
.
A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

Affection is responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is in our lives.

Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.

Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say “infinitely” when you mean “very”; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.

Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art… It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.

God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.

Humans are amphibians – half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

I gave in, and admitted that God was God.

I sometimes wander whether all pleasures are not substitutes for joy.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.

If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.

It's so much easier to pray for a bore than to go and see one.

Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere.

Miracles do not, in fact, break the laws of nature.

Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

Part of every misery is, so to speak, the misery's shadow or reflection: the fact that you don't merely suffer but have to keep on thinking about the fact that you suffer. I not only live each endless day in grief, but live each day thinking about living each day in grief.

Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.

Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ.

The real problem is not why some pious, humble, believing people suffer, but why some do not.

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “All right, then, have it your way.”

This is one of the miracles of love: It gives a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted.

We are what we believe we are.

What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.

You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, The Random Yak, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas,
Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, L.O.M.A., and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

Part III: What Is a “Reagan Conservative”

SJ Reidhead — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:00:31 +0000

IN HIS OWN WORDS

CPAC, February 6, 1977

’m happy to be back with you in this annual event after missing last year’s meeting. I had some business in New Hampshire that wouldn’t wait.

Three weeks ago here in our nation’s capital I told a group of conservative scholars that we are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority.

Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.

A Harris poll released September 7, 1975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.”

Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign.

Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from “right-of-center” (which was defined as “conservative”) to left-of-center (which was defined as “liberal”).

Thirty-seven percent viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal
Twelve percent placed themselves in the middle
Fifty-one percent said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative.
What I find interesting about this particular poll is that it offered those polled a range of choices on a left-right continuum. This seems to me to be a more realistic approach than dividing the world into strict left and rights. Most of us, I guess, like to think of ourselves as avoiding both extremes, and the fact that a majority of Americans chose one or the other position on the right end of the spectrum is really impressive.

Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.

You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism—or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?

I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.

Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.

This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean—and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it—it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing—he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education—he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations—found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right—those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.
Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.

And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.

The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: “Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs—and we believe that the long-range interest of black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted.

The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem.
They should be discussed in human terms.

Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led to a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don’t have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.

It is at this point, however, that we come across a question that is really the essential one: What will be the basis of this New Republican Party? To what set of values and principles can our candidates appeal? Where can Americans who want to know where we stand look for guidance?

Fortunately, we have an answer to that question. That answer was provided last summer by the men and women of the Republican Party—not just the leadership, but the ones who have built the party on local levels all across the country.

The answer was provided in the 1976 platform of the Republican Party.

This was not a document handed down from on high. It was hammered out in free and open debate among all those who care about our party and the principles it stands for.

The Republican platform is unique. Unlike any other party platform I have ever seen, it answers not only programmatic questions for the immediate future of the party but also provides a clear outline of the underlying principles upon which those programs are based.

The New Republican Party can and should use the Republican platform of 1976 as the major source from which a Declaration of Principles can be created and offered to the American people.

Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions.

We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.

We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.

Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character—such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties—must, of course, be handled on the national level.

As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.

We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.

Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.

Families—not government programs—are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.

Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.

Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?

Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.

Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.

The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.

The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom.
We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are
American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none.

In his inaugural speech President Carter said that he saw the world “dominated by a new spirit.” He said, and I quote: “The passion for freedom is on the rise.”

Well, I don’t know how he knows this, but if it is true, then it is the most unrequited passion in human history. The world is being dominated by a new spirit, all right, but it isn’t the spirit of freedom.

It isn’t very often you see a familiar object that shocks and frightens you. But the other day I came across a map of the world created by Freedom House, an organization monitoring the state of freedom in the world for the past 25 years. It is an ordinary map, with one exception: it shows the world’s nations in white for free, shaded for partly free and black for not free.

Almost all of the great Eurasian land mass is completely colored black, from the western border of East Germany, through middle and eastern Europe, through the awesome spaces of the Soviet Union, on to the Bering Strait in the north, down past the immensity of China, still further down to Vietnam and the South China Sea—in all that huge, sprawling, inconceivably immense area not a single political or personal or religious freedom exists. The entire continent of Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, all that vastness is almost totally unfree. In the tiny nation of Tanzania alone, according to a report in the New York Times, there are 3,000 people in detention for political crimes—that is more than the total being held in South Africa! The Mideast has only one free state: Israel. If a visitor from another planet were to approach earth, and if this planet showed free nations in light and unfree nations in darkness, the pitifully small beacons of light would make him wonder what was hidden in that terrifying, enormous blackness.

We know what is hidden: Gulag. Torture. Families—and human beings—broken apart. No free press, no freedom of religion. The ancient forms of tyranny revived and made even more hideous and strong through what Winston Churchill once called “a perverted science.”
Men rotting for years in solitary confinement because they have different political and economic beliefs, solitary confinement that drives the fortunate ones insane and makes the survivors wish for death.

Only now and then do we in the West hear a voice from out of that darkness. Then there is silence—the silence of human slavery. There is no more terrifying sound in human experience, with one possible exception. Look at that map again. The very heart of the darkness is the Soviet Union and from that heart comes a different sound. It is the whirring sound of machinery and the whisper of the computer technology we ourselves have sold them. It is the sound of building, building of the strongest military machine ever devised by man. Our military strategy is designed to hopefully prevent a war. Theirs is designed to win one. A group of eminent scientists, scholars and intelligence experts offer a survey showing that the Soviet Union is driving for military superiority and are derided as hysterically
making, quote, “a worst case,” unquote, concerning Soviet intentions and capabilities.

But is it not precisely the duty of the national government to be prepared for the worst case? Two Senators, after studying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have reported to the Armed Forces Committee that Soviet forces in Eastern Europe have the capability to launch, with little warning, a “potentially devastating” attack in Central Europe from what is termed a “standing alert.”

Reading their report, one can almost see the enormous weight of the parts of the earth that are under tyranny shifting in an irresistible tilt toward that tiny portion of land in freedom’s light. Even now in Western Europe we have Communists in the government of Italy, France appeasing terrorists, and England—for centuries the model or the sword of freedom in Western Europe—weak, dispirited, turning inward.

A “worst case”? How could you make a good case out of the facts as they are known? The Soviet Union, poised on the edge of free Europe, capable of striking from a standing start, has modern tanks in far greater numbers than the outmoded vehicles of NATO. We have taken comfort from NATO’s superiority in the air, but now the Soviet Union has made a dramatic swing away from its historic defensive air posture to one capable of supporting offensive action. NATO’s southern flank is described in the Senate report with a single word: shambles.

The report is simply reality as it was, with different names and faces, in Europe in the late 1930s when so many refused to believe and thought if we don’t look the threat will go away.

We don’t want hysteria. We don’t want distortion of Soviet power. We want truth. And above all we want peace. And to have [recognition] that the United States has to immediately re-examine its entire view of the world and develop a strategy of freedom. We cannot be the second-best super-power for the simple reason that he who is second is last.
In this deadly game, there are no silver medals for second.

President Carter, as a candidate, said he would cut five to seven billion dollars from the defense budget. We must let him know that while we agree, there must be no fat in our armed forces. Those armed forces must be capable of coping with the new reality presented to us by the Russians, and cutting seven billion dollars out of our defense budget is not the way to accomplish this. Some years ago, a young President said, we will make any sacrifice, bear any burden, and we will, to preserve our freedom.

Our relationship with mainland China is clouded. The so-called “Gang of Four” are up one day and down the next and we are seeing the pitfalls of making deals with charismatic personalities and living legends. The charisma fades as the living legends die, and those who take their place are interested not in our best wishes but in power. The keyword for China today is turmoil. We should watch and observe and analyze as closely and rationally as we can.

But in our relationships with the mainland of China we should always remember that the conditions and possibilities for and the realities of freedom exist to an infinitely greater degree with our Chinese friends in Taiwan. We can never go wrong if we do what is morally right, and the moral way—the honorable way—is to keep our commitment, our solemn promise to the people of Taiwan. Our liberal friends have made much of the lack of freedom in some Latin American countries. Senator Edward Kennedy and his colleagues here in Washington let no opportunity pass to let us know about horrors in Chile.

Well, I think when the United States of America is considering a deal with a country that hasn’t had an election in almost eight years, where the press is under the thumb of a dictatorship, where ordinary citizens are abducted in the night by secret police, where military domination of the country is known to be harsh on dissenters and when these things are documented, we should reject overtures from those who rule such a country.

But the country I’m describing is not Chile—it is Panama.

We are negotiating with a dictatorship that comes within the portion of that map colored black for no freedom. No civil rights. One-man rule. No free press.

Candidate Carter said he would never relinquish “actual control” of the Panama Canal.
President Carter is negotiating with a dictatorship whose record on civil and human rights is as I have just described and the negotiations concern the rights guaranteed to us by treaty which we will give up under a threat of violence. In only a few weeks we will mark the second anniversary of the death of freedom for the Vietnamese. An estimated 300,000 of them are being “re-educated” in concentration camps to forget about freedom.

There is only one major question on the agenda of national priorities and that is the state of our national security. I refer, of course, to the state of our armed forces—but also to our state of mind, to the way we perceive the world. We cannot maintain the strength we need to survive, no matter how many missiles we have, no matter how many tanks we build, unless we are willing to reverse:

The trend of deteriorating faith in and continuing abuse of our national intelligence agencies. Let’s stop the sniping and the propaganda and the historical revisionism and let
the CIA and the other intelligence agencies do their job!

Let us reverse the trend of public indifference to problems of national security. In every congressional district citizens should join together, enlist and educate neighbors and make certain that congressmen know we care. The front pages of major newspapers on the East Coast recently headlined and told in great detail of a takeover, the takeover of a magazine published in New York—not a nation losing its freedom. You would think, from the attention it received in the media, that it was a matter of blazing national interest whether the magazine lived or died. The tendency of much of the media to ignore the state of our
national security is too well documented for me to go on.

My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk.
Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

We’ve succeeded better than we know. Little more than a decade ago more than two-thirds of Americans believed the federal government could solve all our problems, and do so
without restricting our freedom or bankrupting the nation.

We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass.
And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin.

Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home.
We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.

The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.”

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

PART II: Are Republicans Different from Conservatives?

SJ Reidhead — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:58:00 +0000

WHAT IS A REPUBLICAN

“…And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk.

Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists…”

Ronald Reagan, 1977

There are very specific reasons why Republicans are Republicans. Believe it or not, it has NOTHING to do with being liberal, moderate, or conservative. It has everything to do with a slate of values, principles, and a definition of what a Republican actually is. No where in any of these is the requirement of “conservative”.

REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES

I'm a Republican Because…

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

THE REPUBLICAN CREED

(We call it the
Republican Creed, not the Conservative Creed)

I do not choose to be a
common man.

It is my right to be
uncommon.

If I can seek opportunity, not
security,

I want to take the calculated risk to
dream and
build, to fail and to
succeed.

I refused to barter incentive for
dole.

I prefer the challenges of life
to
guaranteed security, the thrill of
fulfillment
to the state of calm
utopia.

I will not trade freedom for
beneficence,
nor my dignity for a
handout.

I will never cower before any master,
save
my God.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud
and
unafraid. To think and act for myself, enjoy
the
benefit of my creations; to face the whole
world
boldly and say, “I am a free
American.”

REPUBLICAN PARTY HISTORY
(stolen from the RNC site)

“The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name “Republican” was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.” Even though they were considered a “third party” because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of the day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. The White House was in Republican hands under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the United States became the world's only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

Behind all the elected officials and the candidates of any political party are thousands of hard-working staff and volunteers who raise money, lick the envelopes, and make the phone calls that every winning campaign must have. The national structure of our party starts with the Republican National Committee. Each state has its own Republican State Committee with a Chairman and staff. The Republican structure goes right down to the neighborhoods, where a Republican precinct captain every Election Day organizes Republican workers to get out the vote.

Most states ask voters when they register to express party preference. Voters don't have to do so, but registration lists let the parties know exactly which voters they want to be sure vote on Election Day. Just because voters register as a Republican, they don't need to vote that way – many voters split their tickets, voting for candidates in both parties. But the national party is made up of all registered Republicans in all 50 states. They are the heart and soul of the party. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home.

The symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. During the mid term elections way back in 1874, Democrats tried to scare voters into thinking President Grant would seek to run for an unprecedented third term. Thomas Nast, a cartoonist for Harper's Weekly, depicted a Democratic jackass trying to scare a Republican elephant – and both symbols stuck. For a long time Republicans have been known as the “G.O.P.” And party faithfuls thought it meant the “Grand Old Party.” But apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was “gallant old party.” And when automobiles were invented it also came to mean, “get out and push.” That's still a pretty good slogan for Republicans who depend every campaign year on the hard work of hundreds of thousands of volunteers to get out and vote and push people to support the causes of the Republican Party.”

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

PART I: Has Conservative Talk Radio Doomed the GOP?

SJ Reidhead — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:22:20 +0000

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:

(This is the first in a series of small “think” pieces designed to examine why the GOP is now a “loser”.
Watch for additional installments throughout the weekend.)

FiveThirtyEight has an
interesting commentary today about the intriguing possibility that the
very success of conservative talk radio has doomed the GOP.
I've been coming close to reaching the same conclusion. I
would like to see a break-down of talk show listeners and how they
voted, or as I suspect, did not vote.

The problem
with conservative talk radio is the ASSUME factor. Remember
ASS = U + ME. FiveThirtyEight
notes the following:

“…Conservatives
listen to significantly more talk radio than other market segments; 28
percent of conservative Republicans listen to talk radio regularly, as
opposed to 17 percent of the public as a whole. (Unsurprisingly,
conservative hosts also dominate the the Arbitron ratings). It may have
gone to their heads a little bit; they may have forgotten about radio's
idiosyncrasies as a means of communication. The failures of the Bush
administration have woken the country up; conservatives now need to
find a way to communicate with people who are actually paying
attention….”

If this is indeed true then
conservative talk radio is the voice of doom for the Republican
Party. In 2006, talk radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham
suggested conservatives NOT vote for Republicans running for the House
and the Senate. Other conservative talk show hosts followed
suit. Online, conservative bloggers took up the clarion call
of “teach them a lesson.”

They taught the
GOP a lesson alright.

We all know conservatives
voted 20% for Barack Obama and 14% for John McCain. This
number alone cost John McCain the election. When it comes to
the radio-head talk listeners, the following is
damning.

“…By election
time many culturally conservative
Republicans still did not see him as one of their own and
stayed home, ….A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican
voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary
explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of
eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent
down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout
increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to
31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the
Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped
to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980….
“

If the above numbers are true,
conservative talk radio has a lot of 'splaining to do. After
we factor in the media bias, the irrational hatred of GWB, and the
Obama hype, we're at the point where it is possible conservative talk
radio has actually served to turn some marginal GOP voters against the
Republican Party. When we factor in those numbers and the
number of conservatives who stayed at home, and the conservatives who
voted for Obama – conservative talk radio is a huge loss for the
GOP. According to some experts, it is going to get even worse
if Tom Daschel has his
way with socialized medicine.

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

Failure Should Be An Option

SJ Reidhead — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:06:34 +0000

THE FEAR OF FAILURE

I was listening to Wayne Allen Root discuss failure. I agree with his theory that people need to be able to fail in order to be able to succeed. As we watch three one powerful corporations come calling, hat in hand, begging for billions, Democrats are rushing around to prop them up, crying that failure should not be allowed.

Indeed, that is the very problem with liberals and with Democrats. They cannot allow failure. The very failure to allow failure is a commentary on the mind-set of these individuals. The very act of refusing to recognize or allow failure is an abject failure of their character to reach out to the virtue of growth and change.

We all learn from our failures. Our greatest successes will have been brought about by failure. Our nation’s greatest success stories are about those individuals with the fortitude to rise above their failure.

George Washington was considered an abject failure until a little disturbance and fight for independence opened new avenues of endeavor for him. He knew what he could do, given the chance. He knew who he was and what he was. He was his own worst critic. Once he was given an opportunity for his leadership skills, he rose to the challenge.

The same thing holds true for Harry Truman. He was a joke, having gone bankrupt and suffered business failure after failure. When he was VP for FDR he was treated as a joke, ignored, the invisible man. He is now considered one of our great Presidents.

Thomas Edison was an academic failure. He was considered ‘un teachable”.

A more modern version of the story is about a two-bit (but talented) actor who could not get a job. He was a quitter, having dumped his college career just weeks before he was due to graduate. Unable to get work, and unable to make any money to care for his growing family he bought a “how to” book on carpentry and went to work. Within months he became known as the “carpenter to the stars.” Years after giving up on his acting career he was given the opportunity to star in an experimental science fiction movie everyone knew was going to fail. The role of a lifetime – Han Solo!

Today our society does not allow failure. Children must have their self-esteem pampered at all times. They are not allowed to fail. People must be cushioned from their failures. Those failures might have adverse psychological implications for their long-term well-being and esteem. Their children, trapped in a poor to mediocre educational system, must be made to feel good at all times. This way their educators need not worry about qualifications or actually teaching something to help their students later in life. Self-esteem is a way to protect educators who are abject failures themselves. It is a way to protect a failed system.

Consequently, kids are not allowed to know the horrors of slouching home with an “F” in math (been there and done that – many times). They are also not allowed to know the abject feeling of triumph when they bounce home the following semester, the “F” now a “D+” (been there and done that). They aren’t allowed to learn that failure breeds success.

Failure should not only be an option, but should be considered a “mandatory” subject in the school of hard knocks. I should know, I have a Ph. D. in it. We learn from our failures if we are honest enough to admit to failure and honest enough to allow retrospection.

When we are not allowed to make mistakes we become a society catering to the weak and the mediocre. We become a society of the incompetent. We become a society where individuals are not able to make educated decisions and are motivated by the power of the crowd. We become a nation that must “feel good” – all the time. We become a nation of egotistical prima donnas who are unable to do anything but meander, bovine like, their mouths open, slobbering, as they catch flies.

It is strange how failure is not an option but corruption is. Does the prevention of failure lead to the idea that a person must win at any cost?

Must our way in life be so padded that the virtue of failure now gives way to the deadly destruction of lies, cheating, theft, and corruption?

When a society decides that to allow failure is wrong, but dishonorable success is a virtue we have a very serious problem.

Dishonorable success is destructive to everyone in that society. It is abject corruption.

Once upon a time death was preferable to dishonorable behavior. Many a Roman senator met his end by suicide rather than give in to dishonorable behavior. Politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, or even Barack Obama would be given the option of choosing an aristocratic and “honorable” end rather than endure the humiliation of having their mis-deeds uncovered. Once Rome began accepting those mis-deeds the degradation of Roman society had begun.

Where once honor was a virtue, now success at any cost ruled. Failure was no longer an option. If a person failed, it usually ended in the termination of their very existence. With the new way of living, with success at all costs and failure no longer allowed, the ends justified the means. Noting was sacred and nothing was off-limits.

This behavior ultimately lead the Roman Empire to collapse into itself. There was only one exception. As officials became more and more corrupt, a small, strange cult became more and more powerful. Instead of offering riches and power, it offered a salve for success. Failure was an option because by failure, man grew. That small cult exploded as it brought comfort and a form of protection to an increasingly dangerous and deadly world.

Winning at any cost doomed Rome to abject defeat. Winning at any cost gave way to turn the other cheek and love they neighbor. It gave way to the Ten Commandments and the command to love thy neighbor as one would love one’s self.

Failure is the only way we, as humans can grow. If we have not known failure we do not know how to succeed. The very fact that Democrats and liberals cannot allow failure exposes their abject weakness and their abject corruption.

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, The Random Yak, Political Byline, The World According to Carl, Rosemary's News and Ideas, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

Still Wating to Hear from Press Harbor

SJ Reidhead — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:44:34 +0000

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20

It has been well over 24 hours since I first emailed Press Harbor about the problems I am encountering with the Pink Flamingo's Word Press blog. I have yet to hear from them. Fortunately I have attracted some “professional” help. Naturally everything will be MY fault. I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of people who refuse to take responsibility for their mistakes. I do. Heck, I screw up all the time. Maybe I'm the only one who does.

Are you as alarmed and confused about the story out of AZ about the 8 year old boy who allegedly murdered his father and his father's friend? George Archibald has an excellent piece today about the incident.

Copernicus grave found
Physics of teardrops
Canine bite mystery
Are some times of the month better to hunt Bigfoot?

Huge reserves of frozen water have been discovered on Mars. This is HUGE! If there is water we can generate oxygen.

The Feds are finally figuring out that a catastrophic earthquake is going to hit the New Madrid – Memphis – St. Louis area one of these days.

THE CHAMBERS BOOK OF DAYS

Born: Mean Francois de la Harpe, miscellaneous writer (Lycée ou Cours de is Littérature); Thomas Chatterton, poet, 1752, Bristol; Louis Alexandre Berthier, Prince of Wagram, general of Napoleon, 1753, Versailles.
Died: Sir Christopher Hatton, statesman and courtier of Queen Elizabeth, 1591; Caroline, queen of George II of England, 1737; Cardinal de Polignac, statesman and man of letters, 1741, France; Abraham Tucker, author of The Light of Nature Pursued, 1774, Betchworth. Castle, near Dorking; Roger Payne, celebrated bookbinder, 1797; Mountstuart Elphinstone, Indian diplomatist, &c., 1859, Hookward Park Surrey.
Feast Day: St Maxentia, virgin and martyr. St. Edmund, king and martyr, 870. St. Humbert, bishop of the East Angles, martyr, 9th century. St. Bernard, bishop of Hildesheim, confessor, 1021. St. Felix of Valois, confessor, 1212.

THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE DOUBLED BY VASCO DA GAMA

The doubling of the Cape of Good Hope by Vasco da Game, on the 20th of November 1497, was a notable event in the world’s history not on account of the actual discovery of that cape, which had been made some years earlier, but from the solution of an important question, whether or not India could be reached from Europe by sea. Columbus, we know, sought to reach that far famed land of gold and diamonds, perfumes and spices, by a western route across the Atlantic. He discovered America instead, and those islands, which we now call the West Indies, owe their name to the geographical error which formerly prevailed regard their position. The Spanish monarchs, who first fostered and then neglected Columbus, countenanced those projects which led to the discovery, conquest, and settlement of various parts of America; but the kings of Portugal were the great promoters of the enterprises by which South Africa and India were laid open to Europeans.

With the assistance of a map of Africa, the reader can easily trace the steps by which these discoveries were effected. In the year 1412, Prince Henry of Portugal, a man gifted far beyond the average intelligence of his age, determined to send out a ship to explore the west coast of Africa, by sailing southward from the Straits of Gibraltar. The first voyage was not attended with much success; but the prince pursued the scheme at intervals for many years. In 1415, one of the exploring vessels thus sent out reached as far as Cape Non. In 1418, John Gonzales Zano and Tristam Vaz Texeira, two gentlemen of Prince Henry’s court, made a voyage which enabled them to discover the island of Madeira. After a period of several years, marked by discoveries of a minor character, Gillianez doubled Cape Bojador in 1433 an event which led Pope Martin V, in the plenitude of liberality and inadvertence, to bestow on the king of Portugal all that might be afterwards discovered in Africa and India; a papal concession that gave rise to serious international disputes in after days.

In 1441, Antonio Gonzales and Nuno Tristan advanced as far south as Cape Blanco; a progress which was followed up by Vicente de Lagos and Aloisio de Cada Mosto, who, in 1444, advanced to the river Gambia, and by Cada Mosto, who, in 1446, reached Senegal and Cape de Verde. A long interval now ensued, unmarked by any discoveries of importance on the west African coast. In 1470, the Portuguese discoveries recommenced with a voyage by Fernando Gonaz nearly as far south as the equator. Some years after this, the northern limit of the kingdom of Congo was reached; and in 1484 the river of the same name was attained by Diego Cano. Then came discoveries of a far more important description. King John of Portugal, in 1486, sent out two expeditions to discover an eastern route to India, and likewise the whereabouts of the mysterious potentate known as Prester John. The latter eluded all search, but India did not. One of the expeditions proceeded through Egypt and down the Red Sea, and, amid many difficulties, crossed the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean to Calicut, in India.

The other, under Bartholomew Diaz, comprising two caravals and a small store ship, proceeded southward beyond the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope; and Diaz doubled it, or went round it from west to east with-out knowing it. He coasted a thousand miles of the African shores never before seen by Europeans; and though difficulties prevented him from crossing over to India, he had the joy of finding, on his return, that he had really reached and passed the cape which forms the southern extremity of Africa. He called it Cabo Tormentoso, the Cape of Torments, or Tempests, on account of the rough weather which he experienced there; but the king said: No, it shall be the Cape of Good Hope, for the discovery is one of great promise! At last came the expedition of Vasco da Gama, to which all the above were preliminary. King Emanuel of Portugal (King John’s son) sent him out in 1497, in command of three vessels, with 160 men. He doubled the cape on 20th November, sailed northward, and discovered Sofala, Mozambique, and Melinda; and then, guided by an Indian pilot, he crossed the ocean from Melinda to Calicut in twenty three days. All that followed was a mere finishing of the great problem: Vasco da Gama was the first who made the entire voyage from Western Europe to India, so far as records enable us to judge.

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

Nessie Turns 75

SJ Reidhead — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:29:00 +0000

HAPPY BIRTHDAY

In away the 75th birthday celebrations for Nessie are a bit misleading. Over 1000 people have claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster these past 75 years. To celebrate, you can tune into Nessie Cam and see if you can get a glimpse of the illusive beastie. Or, how does the wee beastie sound? Skeptical? The BBC has a few photos. What is the new Loch Ness Mystery?

I do hope Nessie turns out to be a Plesiosaur.
A wee bit o' Nessie history
The Gralien Report has coverage of the new “mystery”.

The geology of Loch Ness is fascinating. Hummm…I wonder if any of the olde Reidheads ever encountered Nessie? There were a few in that part of the Holy Land (Scotland) in the 1600's. Thing is, something has been in that part of the Holy Land (Scotland) for centuries. In 565 St. Columba had an encounter with the beastie.

“…”…[St. Columba] raised his holy hand, while all the rest, brethren as well as strangers, were stupefied with terror, and, invoking the name of God, formed the saving sign of the cross in the air, and commanded the ferocious monster, saying, “Thou shalt go no further, nor touch the man; go back with all speed.” Then at the voice of the saint, the monster was terrified, and fled more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes, though it had just got so near to Lugne, as he swam, that there was not more than the length of a spear-staff between the man and the beast. Then the brethren seeing that the monster had gone back, and that their comrade Lugne returned to them in the boat safe and sound, were struck with admiration, and gave glory to God in the blessed man. And even the barbarous heathens, who were present, were forced by the greatness of this miracle, which they had seen, to magnify the God of the Christians”…”

Nessie isn't the only “lake monster” out there, just the most famous. There are even a couple here in the US!

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.

The Huge Canadian Fireball

SJ Reidhead — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:20:15 +0000

DID SOMETHING LAND?

Have you heard the one about that huge meteor that sailed across Canada this evening and blew up with a huge fire ball?

“...CTV Calgary has also received several calls about the fireball, and one witness said it was so bright that it was visible from the Deerfoot freeway in the city's core. Other witnesses in Lloydminster, located on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan, said the light was so strong that it appeared to be daylight when it passed over the area. And locals at the Red Pheasant First Nation, 100 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon, said the walls of their band office shook when the fireball streaked overhead. The fireball may have crashed into the ground about 200 kilometres south of Calgary, according to witness Rob Westland. Westland told CTV Calgary that he was driving with his son when the pair spotted a massive light. The Brooks, Alta., resident said that the fireball was about the size of a house and that it may slammed into the ground with a muffled boom. Meanwhile, Calgary-based astronomer Alan Dyer said that it's too soon to speculate on what caused the light….”

(Last Tuesday driving back from Tucson to Tombstone I saw a huge meteor flair out in the sky – one of the brightest I've ever seen.)

According to the Calgary Herald, this was one whopper of a fireball. There are reports that “something landed” but then again we are approaching the Leonid Meteor shower, where strange things happen. I don't think the Martians have landed, though.

“…”According to NavCanada, it appears that this was the result of a meteorite, but that has not been confirmed,” said Rudolph, adding that operations at the airport were not affected.
“What we probably saw was a fireball, which is the result of a rock coming into the atmosphere,” said Chris Herd, an associate professor in the University of Alberta's department of earth and atmospheric sciences and curator of the university's meteorite collection.
“The big question now is whether or not anything hit the ground.”
Richard Huziak, a member of the Royal Astronomical Society who lives in Saskatoon, believes it was likely a meteor that did land somewhere near the Alberta-Saskatchewan border.
It may be possible to determine a more precise location, since fireball video cameras designed to begin recording when a bright light appears in the sky are located in Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Edmonton and Calgary.
“It's very likely this one has been caught. It will show the track through the sky and might show the orbit back into space,” Huziak said.
But while many of the witnesses claimed to see something land, Herd said this was most likely an optical illusion. Since the fireball was a bright light several kilometres up in a dark sky, it would have appeared close to anyone who could see it. If something did fall to the Earth, it's extremely unlikely anyone would have witnessed it, Herd said. As the object fell through the Earth's atmosphere, it would slow down and the resulting decrease in friction would cause it to stop burning.
“What we know about fireballs is that they're bright burning up for a certain amount of time in the atmosphere, but then they stop burning brightly. If there's a rock that continues after that, it's falling in dark flight,” he said.
“This could literally be a couple of kilometres up in the air and it could fall the whole rest of the way without giving off any light. It could drop like a rock to the ground.”
Herd said while fireballs are quite frequent, they don't generally happen over populated areas.
“Something as bright as this is pretty rare,” he said.
If something did ultimately hit the ground, Herd said, it would be a very exciting find.
“It's not often that something actually lands and is found, because of all the factors that are working against you,” he said, adding he hopes anyone who finds a new rock in their yard tomorrow will get in touch with him….”

Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.