This is an exact quote from the 1956 Republican party platform. I  have highlighted a couple of passages. I wonder if the 1012 platform committee would agree to it. 

Taxation and Fiscal Policy

The Republican Party takes pride in calling attention to the outstanding fiscal achievements of the Eisenhower Administration, several of which are mentioned in the foreword to these resolutions.

In order to progress further in correcting the unfortunate results of unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations, we pledge to pursue the following objectives:

Further reductions in Government spending as recommended in the Hoover Commission Report, without weakening the support of a superior defense program or depreciating the quality of essential services of government to our people.

Continued balancing of the budget, to assure the financial strength of the country which is so vital to the struggle of the free world in its battle against Communism; and to maintain the purchasing power of a sound dollar, and the value of savings, pensions and insurance.

Gradual reduction of the national debt.

Then, insofar as consistent with a balanced budget, we pledge to work toward these additional objectives:

Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families.

Initiation of a sound policy of tax reductions which will encourage small independent businesses to modernize and progress.

Continual study of additional ways to correct inequities in the effect of various taxes.

Consistent with the Republican Administration's accomplishment in stemming the inflation —which under five Democrat Administrations had cut the value of the dollar in half, and so had robbed the wage earner and millions of thrifty citizens who had savings, pensions and insurance—we endorse the present policy of freedom for the Federal Reserve System to combat both inflation and deflation by wise fiscal policy.

The Republican Party believes that sound money, which retains its buying power, is an essential foundation for new jobs

The More Things Change

"There ain't no clean way to make a hundred million bucks," (the police lieutenant) said. "Maybe the head man thinks his hands are clean but somewhere along the line guys got pushed to the wall, nice little businesses got the ground cut out from under them and had to sell out for nickels, decent people lost their jobs, stocks got rigged on the market, proxies got bought up  like a pennyweight of old gold, and the five per centers and the big law firms got paid hundred grand fees for beating some law the people wanted but the rich guys didn't, on account of it cut into their profits. Big money is big power and big power gets used wrong, it's the system. Maybe it's the best we can get, but it still ain't my Ivory Soap deal."

This is a quote from The Long Good-bye, written by Raymond Chandler and published in 1953. Things haven't changed much  in the last sixty years. 

Congressman Akin

(After seeing the Akin interview on television a second time, I've changed my opinion, and am not willing to make any excuses for what he said. What follows is what I wrote yesterday.)


Strange as it may seem, I would like to say a word in defense of Congressman Akin. The congressman was interviewed on television yesterday, and made some very strange and offensive remarks about the crime of rape. Now everyone, except perhaps the right wing zealots on the radio, is calling for him to quit his race for the Senate, disappear from public life, crawl back into the woodwork, or what have you.

Most of this is in response to his use of the phrase, "legitimate rape." And what I suspect he meant was not that rape could ever be justified, but that police agencies investigating rape complaints do sometimes conclude that no crime has been committed. When I was doing law enforcement work, I remember hearing that in about two percent of rape allegations it turns out the sex was consensual or did not take place at all. This is about the same proportion of other reported crimes in which police conclude there was no offense.

This is another example of the "gotcha" kind of politics both parties play now. A recent prior occasion for the same thing was the feigned outrage over President Obama's "You didn't build that," remark, where the word "that" referred to infrastructure, not to a business. It's election  year, and everyone's trying for whatever advantage they can get, but this kind of campaign just yields a government divided into warring camps and unable to accomplish  anything.

Nevertheless, Congressman Akin's comment reveals an abysmal ignorance about human reproduction that the citizens of Missouri should consider when casting their ballots. And he's on the House science committee!

The Election - August Edition

Here's a last blog post before I pretend I feel all better and get on with my day. I'll make it a quick one.

(a) 8.3% unemployment

(b) No president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above eight percent.

(c) So why isn't Mitt Romney way ahead in the public opinion polls?

(d) Because he's such an unattractive candidate. Even his own party is accepting him only  grudgingly.

(e) If he's so unattractive, why isn't President Obama able to knock him out?

(f) See (a) above.

Addendum: (I just couldn't help myself.) why would anyone trust the political party that opposed Medicare in the first place, and has done everything it can think of to weaken it in the years since then, to "save" it now?

Voter Photos

Let's see if we can agree on a few things here.

First of all, we don't want anyone voting who isn't legally entitled to vote. No voting for people who are not citizens, no voting by tombstones, no voting by people who are currently incarcerated for felony convictions.

Second, we do want anyone who is legally entitled to vote to do so, without undue difficulty. We also agree that voting is a right, not a privilege, and the purpose of the states in this matter is to make the process as convenient as possible, not throw barriers in its way. Candidates should submit themselves to us all in the marketplace of ideas, and may the better, more persuasive person win.

Having said those two things, we recognize that occasionally a mistake will be made. From time to time someone who is not a citizen will show up at a polling place, either innocently unaware that she cannot legally vote, or maliciously trying to influence the result of the election. There are very few documented cases of this happening, however.

Now, if a mistake is  made, can we agree that it's better to allow an ineligible person to vote than it is to turn away a person who is legally entitled to vote? Voting, to repeat, is a RIGHT, and other than paying taxes is the only affirmative action many people take. We also can agree, I trust, that if the rights of any one person are denied, the rights of every person are threatened.

Regrettably, we have a history in America of voter suppression. We all know of the tricks played in the past to keep black Americans (as well as others) from voting. Literacy tests, restricted party primaries, poll taxes, and long residence requirements all have been used to prevent voting, and all these techniques have been relegated to the junkpile of history.

My own knowledge of voter suppression concerns the state of Virginia. In 1902, the Virginia legislature wrote a new state constitution which initiated a literacy test and poll tax for voting. The proposed constitution provided an exemption from the test or tax for the sons or grandsons of people who were able to vote in 1860, that is before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Advocates for the new constitution  were by no means coy in saying what it would mean. They simply told everyone, "No white man will be disenfranchised by this constitution." The new constitution was ratified and went into effect with predicable result. Within two years the number of black men voting in Richmond fell from about 5,000 to about 500 - that is by ninety percent. Across the rest of the state the result was the same.

A decade later, debating the proposed women's suffrage amendment to the national Constitution, Virginia's legislators turned it down, reasoning that if women could vote that meant that black women would vote, that they would overcome whatever obstacles could be placed in their way, and this would be unacceptable in the Old Dominion.

That's history. I call it to our attention to remind us of what could happen, not necessarily what has happened or is presently happening. However, there seems to be nearly unanimous agreement that the voter photo id laws on the books now in some states and under consideration in some others will affect the racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the old voters more than any others.

Let us not unduly impugn the motives of people who favor these new laws, despite the fact that the leader of the Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature is on tape saying the new law will deliver the state to Mitt Romney. Let us just say the photo id laws are a mistake and be confident they will be ruled unconstitutional.

Let us also hope I will be feeling better soon and can do things besides write blog entries. That deck out back isn't going to build itself.

(Oh, here's a good trick. For many years, Florida Democrats had a "whites only" primary on the dubious theory that a political party is like a private club, and can admit or turn away anyone they please. To make doubly sure only the proper kind of politician would be elected the voters cast ballots for two candidates in the primary, and then there would be a run-off between the two top vote getters for the nomination. That ensured that if two candidates split the segregationist vote, there would be a second chance to be sure no racial progressive could sneak through.)

Cousins

This is the latest blog entry by my cousin Bob, who lives in Massachusetts. Bob is the son of my father's younger brother.

"THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA"?

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15 New King James Version)

There's an old expression we often use, especially but not exclusively in Christian religious circles, which says, "You can't rob Peter to pay Paul". Peter and Paul were two of the biggest and most significant leaders of the early Church. They were also VERY different men. Paul was originally from outside of Palestine, was a Roman citizen, and was extremely well educated. Peter was FROM Galilee in Palestine, was very "blue collar", and was very outspoken and impulsive. We know from the Book of Galatians in the New Testament that at times they greatly CLASHED.

WHY am I writing about Peter and Paul here and WHAT do they have to do with a piece about "The Spirit of America"? Well, I'm really not writing about the BIBLICAL characters, Peter and Paul here. Rather, I'm mentioning my COUSINS Peter and Paul. Both are Facebook friends of mine. Peter writes a blog. Peter (from Colorado) is retired, having previously worked as a forest ranger and a history teacher. Paul (from Pennsylvania) although past retirement age is a Certified Financial Planner. I would describe Peter as a "bleeding heart liberal" and Paul as a conservative Republican business type. They recently conducted sort of a "friendly political argument" on Facebook. I had to chuckle that two Grandchildren of Pierre E. and Marie H. Baril could be SUCH opposites politically! Peter is VERY much for President Obama. He has endorsed him on his blog, and honestly, I can't think of ANYONE who is a bigger fan of President Obama than is Peter Baril. Paul is voting for Mitt Romney and believes the reelection of President Obama would really be a terrible thing.

My own views are closer to Paul's than to Peter's. That said, I am NOT a big fan of Mitt Romney. I will not vote for Obama in the Fall. I am struggling with whether or not I will "hold my nose and vote for Mitt Romney or not". I have not made up my mind on this. Listen, I have heard all the arguments in favor of voting for Mitt Romney. I don't need to hear any more of them, thank you; so please save your writing.

On Facebook, in the midst of Peter and Paul's postings, I posted that I believe America is becoming a hedonistic and atheistic country; more every day. Peter posted, asking if I REALLY believe this and if I could write more about it. THIS is the result of his request that I write more about it. I do think Mitt Romney would make a better President than Barack Obama, and I'm a Republican. BUT, Romney would be a mediocre President, at best. America's problem IS primarily spiritual. In 2008, Michelle Obama was CORRECT when she lamented, "our souls are broken".

Our souls ARE broken. Sadly, President and Mrs. Obama have offered really NO guidance or real help in this area, and Mitt Romney offers next to nothing, in my opinion.

This is SUCH a deep and complicated matter, I suppose I could write a whole BOOK on the subject. At the very least, I could probably do four or five lengthy postings on the blog about it. Instead I am going to just "spit out" what I believe about this here.

I can be a very "gut level" person at times, and at times I can "really turn people off". This is IRONIC because at the core of my being, I'm a guy who very much wants to be LIKED and AFFIRMED! So, it's with some definite "fear and trembling" (see I Corinthians 2:1-4) that I post this, but I DO believe every word of it:

Yes, American is becoming like modern Europe: hedonistic and atheistic. We were moving in this direction with or without President Obama, but his Presidency has only accelerated this trend. Evangelical Christian scholars who carefully study demographics and popular trends have noted that Massachusetts, especially the Boston area (as well as the Montreal area in Canada, for that matter) is CULTURALLY speaking "Europe" and not "America". Some missionaries from the Bible belt who are bound for Europe actually come and live in the Boston area for awhile to prepare for the culture shock they'll face.

The most popular series of license plates in Massachusetts is the "Sprit of America" series which began being issued in the early 1990s and is still in use today. My own cars display plates with the moniker "The Spirit of America". I remember about eight years ago, a woman from San Deigo, California who came to visit her brother and his family in Natick. She was a devout evangelical Christian who attends a southern California mega church. The woman was HORRIFIED by the slogan on the Massachusetts plates,

"If THIS is the Spirit of America, then HEAVEN HELP US!!" she exclaimed. Originally from the Boston area, but having lived away for thirty years, she was agast at the smug, brash, me-first, godless attitude and atmosphere of the Boston area.

Yeah, we are embodying the current Spirit of America which is really much more like the Spirit of Belial I mentioned above...a hellish spirit of wickedness and ungodlliness.

Bluntly, it seems nobody can keep their pants on anymore. People become sexually active at ridiculously young ages. They couldn't tell you who Eleanor Roosevelt was or define what a cartographer is, but they can tell you everything you want to know about sex and everything you DON'T want to know about it, too!

People can't get thorough a conversation without a few F-Bombs being thrown in. People will tell you no one has the right to tell them what to do with THEIR bodies. In Europe, the churches are EMPTY. Christianity is seen as a dusty, undesirable relic of the past. New England is rapidly moving in that direction. Granted, there's still the Bible belt, but give it another generation and Dallas will be just like Boston. Most of what is on television and movies is really not fit to watch anymore.

There's also a very European attitude that it's up to the Government to GIVE you what you need, and then some! "Personal responsibility"? What's that?!

I could go on and on about the trend toward hedonism and atheism, but as bad as that trend is, I also see some other disturbing trends in our country.

The pastor of Bread of Life Assembly of God in Westminster, MA where I attend recently preached an excellent sermon about how the church is supposed to be "salt and light" in our world. Sadly, instead, evangelical Christians have often been judgmental, and legalistic. We often (stupidly) present a very negative gospel. WE have experienced a LOVING and FORGIVING and UNDERSTANDING and all powerful Savior, who has given us life more abundantly. We've had PRECIOUS times with our Lord. Yet, we present God as petty and mean and a being who wants to ruin everyone's fun and make their lives miserable. We also present God as this angry, right-wing Republican who is CRAZY ABOUT MITT ROMNEY and who wants everybody to be just like Mitt Romney. Listen, I used to be one of the most negative and legalistic guys you would ever want to meet, AND I used to be so far to the Right that I almost made Jesse Helms look like a liberal. I'm still a Republican and fairly conservative, but I've changed quite a bit over the past twenty-five years, and I've re-thought a lot of this stuff of wrapping up our Christianity in right wing politics and the Republican party.

I can already hear critics challenging, "You've made a case that NEW ENGLAND is like Europe, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the country!"

No, it DOES. We're just ten or twenty years ahead of many of you.

Listen,

It's not false religion; the "I'm OK, You're OK" stuff that we need. That just "tickles the ears" for awhile, but has little real substance.

It's not aggressive fundamentalism with no love that we need.

It's not self-righteousness that we need.

It's not cults that we need... just LOOK at Scientology, for example.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"- THAT'S what we need.

John 3:16. That's what we need.

Jesus. Jesus is who and what we need. NOT the false Jesus that is so often presented. NOT that one. The REAL one.

Listen, when you're dying; when everything is "all washed up" so to speak- THAT'S when you realize how TRUE this is.

My father was a very accomplished person and a very pround man. He got dementia so bad that he was completely incontinent. He could not speak beyond occasionally getting out a word or two. He could not take care of himself at all. One day, I sat next to him at Charwell House Nursing Home in November of 1999, and I talked to him about Jesus. Oh, he'd been a Catholic and all that stuff; but I talked to him about having Jesus in his heart, being ready to die, being ready to go to Heaven...all that kind of stuff. My father, literally like a little child, responded and received Jesus.

A few months ago, I visited "Jack" at another nursing home...this one in Framingham. This 82-year-old was a graduate of M.I.T. He was brilliant. But he never wanted to talk about Jesus or the Gospel. Never. He was not interested. I did not push Jack at all. THAT day, he WAS interested. We talked about Jack's terminal cancer. Jack wan interested. Jack wanted Jesus. I did his funeral service just three weeks later.

Listen, the answer is not Mitt Romney. And the answer is CERTAINLY not Barack Obama. The answer is not more smugness, more pride, more intellect; DEFINITELY not more humanistic independence! The answer is also NOT more religion, per se.

The ONLY hope for America is that we humble ourselves and turn to Jesus Christ as Lord, 100%. Seriously. "What would Jesus do?" needs to not be an empty slogan but a living reality.

"The Spirit of America" needs to NOT be the spirit of smugness, pride, intellect, and independence.

"The Spirit of America" needs to be THE HOLY SPIRIT.

There, I said it.

And, as my old friend David C. Milley would say, "If you still love me, say AMEN!"