John Muir, Yosemite, Enacting Change

Last night, Dave and I caught most of the first episode of Ken Burns' new National Parks documentary.

I am going to digress already. First, the obligatory I know that PBS and Ken Burns have a liberal slant, but I still enjoy these documentaries. Second, the above linked article starts out with this statement (from a previous opinion piece, which I did not read) :

"[The documentary's] premise—that Big Government saved wilderness and national treasures that private enterprise would have destroyed—is a lot more politically pointed (in the year of the Tea Party) than you'd expect from a Burns documentary about trees. "

Please. There's a difference between big government taking over the free enterprise system while burdening future generations with phenomenal debt, and the government protecting natural resources. My time is too limited this morning to delve into this.

Right now, I want to discuss John Muir. First off, I need to say that I grew up with a totally trivial bias against him. I went to Horace Mann Middle School. John Muir Middle School was our cross-town rival, and therefore, evil. (Did you know there are only two John Muir Middle Schools in the country?)

Some things I learned about John Muir from the documentary last night:

- His father beat him and made him memorize the Bible. By the time he was 11, he had memorized 3/4 of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament.
- He attended the University of Wisconsin. He was able to use his knowledge to help businesses become more profitable.
(I may have missed this on the documentary, but something I read on Wikipedia is that he spent the years during the Civil War in Canada)
- He was temporarily blinded in a work accident. When he recovered, he walked to Florida. He planned to walk to South America and ride down the Amazon, but he was taken ill. He went to Yosemite instead.
- He turned his spiritual attention to nature. The documentary called it a Christianity with creation as its core. The wikipedia article states that he rejected the idea of a Creator. I think it would have been more apt to simply state he worshipped nature, instead of using the term 'Christianity' as a generic for spirituality.
- He married. His wife's family owned a vineyard and he helped to increase its productivity.
-He became ill. His wife realized he needed to get back in the natural environment, so she sent him to Mt. Ranier.
- He then went back to Yosemite, and was disgusted with how commercialized it had become.

Here's the part that stood out the most for me:

- He wanted Congress to protect the Yosemite region. The establishment wanted to discredit him, so he appealed directly to the people. He wrote articles in Century magazine glorifying the Yosemite region. This led people to petition their congressman to create a national park. Congress established it as a state-controlled park shortly thereafter.

So, one of our country's first conservationists, the founder of the Sierra Club, realized that the normal channels for enacting change weren't open to him. He used the means available to him to let the people hear him.

I wonder what he would have done if the internet had been available to him? Perhaps he would have bypassed even the magazine, and gone directly to blogging. I'm sure Tom Brokaw and Thomas Friedman would have been duly distressed.

Selective Journalism

I was planning on taking a break from discussing politics for awhile, but I came across this comment on the Althouse blog. I wanted to remember it, so I thought I'd post it here:

"A particularly apropos reminder when discussing the selective journalism of the NYT:

It is in the nature of [secular progressivism] for its adherents to make a certain kind of lying – and not only to others but first of all to themselves – a fundamental part of their lives.It is always a mistake to assume that [secular progressives] do not know the truth about the political reality they espouse. If they don’t know the truth (or all of it) one day, they know it the next, and it makes absolutely no difference to them politically. For their loyalty is to something other than the truth. And no historical enormity is so great, no personal humiliation or betrayal so extreme, no crime so heinous that it cannot be assimilated into the ‘ideals’ that govern the [secular progressive] mind, which is impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination.– Hilton Kramer

Kramer was writing about Stalinists. However, secular progressives in the US would be Stalinists but for constraints imposed on them by the traditional American institutions they work to dismantle: The Constitution, capitalism and Judeo-Christian values."

Isn't That Precious?

On our way into town, we pass over a highway. We go past a pro-life billboard, with a picture of a baby with words to the effect that every life is precious. The word 'Precious' is prominent on the billboard.

Probably about a year ago, as we were driving past it, Henry remarked to Grace, "Look, there's Precious!" So, several times a week, we'll hear Grace shout, "There's Precious!" as we pass the billboard.

This week, we heard "Where's Precious?" We could all see that she was still there, so we told her not to worry, she was still there. Grace was insistent that someone had taken Precious away. As we went home, Madeline again pointed out to her that Precious was still there. No, Grace insisted, she was gone. Then, Madeline realized that all this while, Grace had been looking at the billboard across the highway that had a teddy bear on it. That was Precious. And, sure enough, Precious is now gone.

The rest of us were pretty tickled about this year-long misunderstanding. Grace doesn't see the humor in it.

Reporting The News

Charlie Gibson, the anchor of the ABC Evening News, said yesterday morning that the reason he hasn't reported on the ACORN scandal is because he hadn't heard anything about it until the Senate voted to withhold funding the other day.

I believe that last night was the first time Katie Couric reported on it at CBS.

If you hold a position that's responsible for telling the American people the news, shouldn't you be aware of major developing stories?

Shouldn't we hold Gibson and Couric to the same standard they held Sarah Palin?

An Analogy

I thought of an analogy regarding the concept of The American People Are The New Fourth Estate. I'm not sure if it quite works, but it made me feel a little clever, so I decided to post it.

Suppose every time you go to the doctor, they seat some of the people on the left side of the waiting room, and some of the people on the right side. The people on the left side always received excellent care, but the people on the right side were generally neglected. Furthermore, if you ever complained, the lefties said you were overreacting. The doctors provided outstanding care. The doctors, too, called you a bunch of whiners and insisted their service was exceptional.

After awhile, some of the righties decided that they were going to take matters into their own hands. They figured out how to treat their own sicknesses, and started treating the other righties as well.

Of course, the doctors and the lefties trivialized the service these righties were performing, claiming it inferior.

They didn't understand that the righties would have much preferred to let the doctors do the job. Someone had to do the job the doctors refused to do.

American People Are The Fourth Estate

I wanted to post this video. It ties in nicely with my recent posts on the media and also on ACORN.

Incidentally, Breitbart's Big Government blog has the latest scoops on the ACORN debacle.

ACORN And Federal Funding

Below is the text of an email I just sent to my Senators and Congressman (I changed the wording on the second paragraph for my congressman). I don't write them too often. I guess part of me has been worried that if I write them too often they'll dismiss me as extreme.
I guess I'm not worried about that so much any more.
I also sent a separate note to Senator Feingold, thanking him for his recent decision to vote against Cap and Trade.

"I am one of your many constituents who is disgusted by the recent, and still developing, ACORN scandal. While I have always been skeptical of this highly partisan organization, the recent videos are over the top.

I understand that there is an amendment on the Senate floor to block any further money to ACORN. That is a good first step, and I urge you to vote for the amendment.

However, that is not nearly enough. There need to be Congressional investigations into how ACORN has used taxpayer funds, and about the allegations of voter fraud associated with ACORN. There needs to be assurances that this organization will not receive funding under any different names.

While I understand that there may have been legitimate reasons for originally funding this type of organization, there is no reason that the blatantly corrupt ACORN should receive federal funding.

Please take these concerns seriously, and help me regain trust in my elected representatives."

2 Pounds

I'm trying to not get too excited about it, but the scale was down 2 pounds this morning. Woo Hoo!

Keeping Track of Pencils, Etc.

I wanted to pass on a little trick I implemented this year for school. The kids' pencils and pens, glue sticks, etc. were always getting lost.

This year, they each got a pencil box. Okay, no big deal there. I bought a roll of colored duct tape for each of them (Madeline = blue, Henry = green, Grace = pink). They each (at least the two older ones) started with 10 pencils, 3 pens, a scissors, a glue stick and 24 colored pencils (plus some stand by pens). On each of these, I wrapped a small strip of their respective duct tape.

Now, when I see anything lying around that should be in the box, I know exactly who to call and have them put it away. It's a small thing, and it took a bit of time to set it up, but it's been very helpful in the day to day running of school.

Tickers

I set up a goal to lose 20 pounds by my 20th anniversary (12/29/2009). I set up another goal of exercising for 2000 minutes. I made some tickers, but the exercise one is kind of hard to read. I'll have to see if I can adjust that somehow.

So far I'm at 70 minutes down, 1930 to go!

Update : Thetickers were moved to the bottom of the page.

At Least He Isn't Biased

We don't usually watch the evening news, but tonight Dave had the beginning of it on just before supper. Brian Williams, the anchor of NBC News, led off with a statement along the lines of "President Obama's health care agenda has been sabotaged by town hall meetings spreading false rumors of 'death panels'. "

Grrrrrr

The Media And The Administration

If you spend much time on the internet, you probably already know that Obama's Green Czar, Van Jones, resigned over the weekend. Van Jones made derogatory statements and lived a radical lifestyle, and he should not have been appointed to a non-accountable position overseeing a $30,000,000,000 budget.

These are the accusations against him that I am aware of:

1) Earlier this year, he called Republicans a**holes.

2) He actively supported a cop killer, Mumia, convicted of the 1981 slaying of a Philadelphia police officer.

3) Jones is a self-described communist. Specifically, "by August [after the Rodney King verdict] I was a communist." He assumed a leadership role in the group STORM, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, a Marxist organization in the San Francisco area.

4) Most disturbingly, he's a 'Truther'. This is a term for people who believe that the Bush Administration was behind the 9/11 attacks on our country. Jones now claims that he didn't understand the 2004 petition he signed. It's implausible that a community activist wouldn't understand the words on a petition. More importantly, as early as 2002, he organized a Truther March in San Francisco.

Items #1 and #2 above should not, of themselves, disqualify him from service. (Although, if a Bush appointee had called Democrats a**holes, the mainstream media would have been all over it.)

However, isn't it a very genuine and reasonable concern to question whether a man who has core beliefs that undermine our system of government should be responsible for overseeing a $30,000,000,000 budget within that same government?

Obama named Jones a czar, bypassing the part where the Senate has to confirm his appointment. Jones could have spent the money in any way he chose, with no accountability to the American people. Fortunately, we have a diligent media intent on pursuing truth and making sure that there is no corruption in the Obama Administration, right? Ha Ha.

It's been documented that all last week, as the controversy surrounding Jones' past was brewing, CBS, NBC & ABC, as well as other mainstream news outlets, had zero stories on him. As this article states:

"When the vast majority of the traditional news outlets in the nation fail to report major news regarding the country and its government, citizens are kept precariously in the dark concerning vital news that they need to know in order to make informed choices. CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post, etc. are all so heavily invested in the success of the Obama administration, due to their obvious cheerleading role during the campaign and after the election, that they are loathe to report any information that may place Obama, the Administration, or the Democratic Congress is a negative light."

When the press finally reported about the controversy, after Jones' resignation, they focused on Item #1 above as the main reason for his downfall, not his extremist views.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman claim that the main lesson from the Jones debacle is that the internet is a dangerous place, and now people will be afraid to say anything controversial over fear that it will be posted on the internet. You can check out the video here .

That's the main message? Not that the mainstream media was bending over backwards to protect an Obama appointee from public scrutiny? Don't American citizens have a right to know if someone in a highly responsible government position has extremist beliefs that, are, in fact, subversive to the government?

Of course, I've been aware of a liberal bias in the media ever since I switched over to conservatism. Lately, it's become more than annoying. It's chilling. Those who are supposed to be the watch dogs for all of us, have instead become the lap dogs for the other side.

By the terms they use, by the inflections in their voices, by the questions they ask and don't ask, even by what they edit out and what they leave in an interview, they've been able to decide how the debate will be presented. Who's going to appear to be reasonable, and who's going to appear to be wacko? Who's going to come across as a nice guy, and who's a jerk? Who gives thoughtful responses to a question, and who's answers are mindless?

Is that the way it's going to remain? In years to come, will the few still dominate the dissemination of information? Or, will internet based media gain more and more prominence? In the future, who will be the main framers of the debate?

I don't know. But it definitely reinforces my conviction that I need to hone my own, and my children's, thinking and writing skills so that we'll be prepared to participate.

The Government is Not a Village

Thinking about government, morality and taking care of each other is reminding me of the whole idea of "It takes a village".

My understanding of "It takes a village to raise a child" is that you need a number of people who love and are emotionally invested in an individual child to help him grow, flourish and mature. The "village" should be family, friends and neighbors. Loved ones.

Hillary co-opted the term to totally reverse its meaning. If the government becomes the "village", you are, in fact, undermining the influence of the very people the child needs. No bureaucrat can ever care for a child like a parent or friend can.

It's all about who gets to define the terms.

Another Facebook Quote

Here's the other facebook post, from X:

"No one should die because they were forced to pay the way for someone else in any capacity. No one should go broke because they were forced to pay for someone else anything. It is a moral imperative to be charitable to those less fortunate than you. ...However, it is fascist and immoral to take by force what one person has earned and give it to another. "

I'm guessing that the quote I previously posted has been making the rounds on facebook, and this is a response to it. While I agree with this one, I probably would have worded it differently. I think that this particular response seems to imply that those who are opposed to government run health care mainly object because of financial concerns.

I'm not going too political on facebook, at least not yet. But if I were to post a response to the first post, it would be along these lines:

"No one should die because a government panel decides that they are too old or too disabled to warrant spending money on their health care. No one should go broke because they had to pay taxes. No one's child should have to wait six months for a doctor's appointment. And no one should have to choose between paying wages and paying taxes."

Incidentally, X posted this today:

"No one should be without a beer because they cannot afford one, and no one should be broke because they bought too many beers. "

Health Care, Government and Morality

Yesterday, a couple of my facebook friends had posts about health care. Here's the first one:

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, no one should go broke because they get sick, and no one's child should miss a doctor's appointment because it costs too much. And no one should have to choose between buying medicine and buying food. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."

While I'm quite fond of the person who posted that, I'm quite annoyed by the sentiment.

I strongly resent the implication that if I don't want the government to run health care, I am uncaring. That having the government in charge of health care (or anything) is somehow a morally superior stance.

I contend that having the government take charge of anything is a morally inferior stance. It's a copout.

Aren't our families and children better off when the parents take charge of providing for them? Well, I could buy this insurance policy but I know that the government will step in if something bad (health crisis, flooding, other natural disaster occurs). Shouldn't the schools be teaching my kids about that (manners, hygiene, sex ed, values, etc.)?

The more people expect the government to be involved in anything, the less they are inclined to be individually responsible for them. The more government is involved, the more institutionalized, and therefore less human, the help becomes.

If I know that the widow down the street is being provided for by the government, I am less inclined to see if she needs help mowing her lawn or getting a ride to church. My conscience is eased knowing that she's being helped, and yet I am in no way inconvenienced (aside from paying taxes).

But doesn't working through an inconvenience make us stronger. Does government control of anything make its citizens stronger or weaker?

I support government help for those in our society who are truly in need, namely those who are mentally and physically unable to care for themselves. But, the more we expand the category of those needing government assistance, the more we weaken the entire population.