Our young, inexperienced, immature, inadequately-educated, and misguided President has shamelessly and opportunistically admitted to having twice reversed his opinion about what marriage is, or should be. He now claims, once again, to be in favor of marriage being something other than a blessed, holy union between a man and a woman. Apparently suddenly struck by a revelation while munching on arugula, our feckless President tries to categorize his bald-faced political flip-flopping as “evolution,” but can it, by any stretch, possibly be such?
“Evolution” is defined, and generally understood to be, a change that takes place naturally, over eons, and which results in distinctly different sets of natural phenomena. Precipitous, sudden, traumatic, and complete change, as caused by man, is “revolution,” not “evolution.” It was evolution, when sea creatures, over millions of years, made their way out of the water, developed lungs that used air, and turned flippers and fins into arms and legs. No human—nor fish—dictated that such change would take place in just a couple of years. Obama’s seismic shift in position about same sex marriage is revolutionary, not evolutionary: he would, after all, drastically alter, essentially in the blink of an eye, a fundamental human relationship that has been a foundation of humanity for as long as there has been recorded history. That is not something that natural causes have changed gradually, over millennia. It’s as though, long before there was even Obama, fish wiggled their way on the beach, and then—POOF—the next morning they were up and running around on their new legs, playing air guitars.
Revolution is usually the province of the very young and inexperienced: evolution is God’s domain alone. The young want change for the sake of mindless change: they were a major force in electing Mr. Obama to his present political office, because they naively believed that he, also of that “young group,” would somehow bring them the undefined “change” they wanted. It also is the rash, impulsive, inexperienced youth that spur most of today’s revolutionary activity (e.g., disorganized and directionless destruction of governments in Egypt and Libya; the Occupy Wall Street movement, etc.). Yes, our nation was born of revolution, but ours (against the British Crown) was conceived, planned, designed, established, and put in place by experienced, thoughtful men in their late 40s and 50s (Benjamin Franklin may have been the eldest, at 81 when the Constitutional Convention was held; Alexander Hamilton was then perhaps the youngest, at 32). Inexperienced, uneducated youth had nothing to do with the American Revolution, but they are now the destructive Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the majority of those saying that they favor same-sex marriage (also legalization of mind-altering drugs, and installation of a Socialist/Marxist government).
Marriage was created to sanctify, establish, and protect the union of a man and woman, so that they could bring forth new life, and then raise those children in a healthy, caring, moral, family environment. It has served mankind relatively well until the recent arrival of the vaporous “Age of Enlightenment,” in which 15-year-olds are endowed (by Harry Potter?) with the wisdom of the ages—past and future. It seems, at least to many of those accepting marriage between persons that can’t reproduce, that there’s no harm in such a “little change” to social codes, mores, and religious beliefs, but if a marriage between two physical males is ok, then why not marriage to one’s pit bull, canary, or even pet rock? Once the door is opened, who/what will enter?
Where does the silliness end? Changes to long-established, tried-and-true rules for human behavior must only be made after generations of thoughtful consideration; any other revolutionary behavior is taken a great risk. Families have long been, and still are, the basic building blocks of any successful human society. Our traditional families are already coming unglued, and the destructive results of such are plainly, and painfully, evident. Now, our sacrilegious President says that he supports marriage between any two humans, with no involvement by church or God in that process. What next will Mr. Obama do to tear apart the fabric of human society, and thus the nation itself? Let us hope that he won’t be re-elected, so we don’t have to find out.
►30◄
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column, by j.g.nash. The author welcomes relevant comment, which may be sent to him at jgn@jgnash.com.
Many readers, faithfully enduring my conservative opinions, write to thank me for inspiring them to think about important subjects which hadn’t previously occurred to them. I suspect that this may be another such moment.
Our imperial President regularly squanders millions (billions?) of dollars of our tax dollars (such as those which I, and perhaps you as well, recently, and reluctantly, forked over for the careless use of our inept, incompetent, and corrupt Federal Government). Among the President’s more egregious misuses of tax dollars is his regular demand for use of a fleet of aircraft, and battalion of men, to flit about the world, on generally unimportant missions, which could have been as well, or better, handled, from his desk in the Oval Office, by use of secure, audio/visual communications nets available at his request.
Yes, in this age of secure communications, our President could, if he wanted, stay in Washington while conducting necessary business, anywhere on the face of the globe. But that doesn’t fit Mr. Obama’s picture of himself, so he commands an expensive aerial armada to fly to even the most insignificant emerging nation, so that he can there create the photo opportunities and sound bites that make him look as though he’s doing his job—although he’s actually wasting very significant amounts of time, and millions of dollars in the process.
Although, through political convenience more than security, the money spent on presidential travel involving AF-1 (the presidential airborne palace) is a closely guarded secret, we can conservatively estimate that a trip across the USA, to say Los Angeles, will cost you and me millions. And that’s what you and I just paid, so that our President could attend a Hollywood dinner, which reportedly raised $15-million for his current campaign for personal re-election. Is there something wrong here?
Now since the actual costs are unavailable to most everyone, we’re forced to estimate what the expenses are. Air Force One is a 747 aircraft, which costs a reported $250,000 to fly, one-way, across the USA; so the round trip to Los Angeles starts at half a million. But Air Force One never flies alone, and many other dedicated aircraft fly the route before and after it does. There are airplanes to carry special-purpose vehicles; communications equipment; food, and beverages; security, maintenance, and communications personnel; a medical team, and hair stylists—even a cook and bartender. Bottom line is that the costs of the additional aircraft, and the feeding and billeting of the scores of persons on them, easily add more than another million to a transcontinental, presidential trip lasting two or three days. And therefore, dear reader, the President’s recent political campaign trip to some movie star’s basketball court costs you and me around $2,000,000.
The specific trip referenced was to a fund-raising dinner, designed to collect money to help Mr. Obama advertise his hopes for re-election this November. The taxpayers thus paid though the nose so that Obama could spend more millions on patently misleading and inaccurate advertising (e.g., the current-running slide show illustrating how Obama’s Socialistic policies are what make it possible for a typical woman {Julia} to live a comfortable, pleasant life, from cradle to grave).
It has been reported that the dinner for 150 guests, held at actor George Clooney’s posh,Laurel Canyon mansion, near Los Angeles, raised a record $15-million for Obama’s political campaign. A famous chef, Wolfgang Puck, prepared Peking-style roast duckling ($40,000 a plate) for the “star-studded” list of celebrities (I recognized only Barbara Striesand’s name). Isn’t it interesting, that in a time when the President regularly criticizes the “rich,” he will spend millions of the nation’s money to attend a dinner that costs diners more per person than nearly half of the workers in this nation earn in a year?
There are many relevant questions here: 1- Should a president be able to misuse tax dollars in this manner? 2- In a time of economic recession and increasing worry over the nation’s economy, should any conscionable leader set an example of glaring excess spending—let alone when that is for personal gain? 3- Why do grossly-overpaid entertainment workers appear to enthusiastically support a politician that says he’ll make ‘em (the filthy rich) “pay their fair share”?
It’s interesting to note that, as has been recently reported, the Governor of Puerto Rico, has made significant cuts in government spending; including even a 10% reduction in his own salary: at the same time, our chief executive not only resists any meaningful cuts to government spending, but, as is demonstrated by his flagrant misuse of military aircraft and personnel, throws our money around like a drunken sailor on his first night ashore after a month at sea.
Bottom line: In this especially challenging time of economic decline and fall, Mr. Obama shows flagrant disregard for the nation and its people. Instead of economizing, or working to create new jobs in useful industry, he throws money at pie-in-the-sky projects (e.g., solar panels, or fuel from algae), and at additional socialistic projects (Obama Care), while spending millions more on his personal ambitions or pleasures. His imperial use of available assets (e.g., military aircraft) for personal pleasure or gain is inexcusable. Yes, prior presidents have sometimes similarly used the perks of office inappropriately, but not to the excess now demonstrated by the Socialist, Obama administration. You see, in a functional Socialist nation, the leaders revel in excessive luxury, while the masses struggle in hopeless poverty. This is just one more reason to throw Obama out of office when we have the opportunity. Whomever we elect in his place, couldn’t possibly be worse for the nation – for you and me.
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column by j.g.nash. Pertinent comments may be sent to jgn@jgnash.com.
It has long been an accepted maxim that one should: Be careful of what you write, because if it can be misunderstood, it will be. Because of the convenience and availability of today’s rapidly proliferating ways of social communication, the chance for misunderstanding has grown dramatically, and dangerously–almost overnight.
I don’t tweet, twitter, twerp, nor use any of those very popular, inane, social networking Web sites designed for lonely persons, and/or for those of us that hold tight a misleading belief that we really, really, have something profound or fascinating to say (in 150 characters or less) to all mankind (and, in some cases, to unicorns as well).
Now I speak from experience, because being of an insatiably curious nature, I’ve tried several of those electronic, social gossip circles; quickly ascertaining that they had nothing whatsoever to offer (other than another way to waste time., if one has a need for that). As I recall, I even tried Facebook twice, after being begged to “give it another chance” by my grandchildren. And then, when some professional associates suggested that I would like a site called Linkedin, because it was more for the construction and maintenance of business networks than for simple social gossip, I gave that one a try; it soon demonstrated that it lacked anything more than “pie in the sky” job growth. It appeared to me to be little other than Facebook in slightly gussied-up, office attire. Although it’s intentionally difficult to extricate one’s self from such as Facebook, or Linkedin, I’ve tried to erase whatever I could, thereafter simply ignoring automated trash generated by the sites.
I see a real and present danger to social interaction, as posed by the flurry of quick, short, generally thoughtless, communications continually being posted to these social chat rooms. Readers will read-in what’s not there, and/or misinterpret what is. Sometimes they may contact the writer and ask for clarification, but if being clear (as our President likes to say, over and over again) is important, than one should be writing thoughtfully, and at adequate length, so as to minimize misunderstanding, rather than dashing out a couple of poorly constructed sentences filled with misspellings, unrecognized abbreviations, and devoid of helpful punctuation or capitalization. It is no accident that subjects worthy of mature discussion and consideration don’t appear anytime, or anyplace on Facebook, or its hopeless copiers.
Mine is a voice in the wilderness, because the popularity and use of such as Facebook continues to grow. For example, a few of the newspapers that carry my column (Of Cabbages and Kings), now require readers wanting to comment to use Facebook when submitting their opinions. The reason given for that requirement is that “It reduces the number of junk comments we receive,” but it also appears to have severely reduced the number of thoughtful, interesting comments that would have been submitted by adults that don’t want to waste time on social networking, nitwit sites.
I’ve been utilizing the power of electronic computers from their birth, and I see E-mail as a wonderful development of the computer age, but none of the other rapidly thrown together communications programs are worth a single byte of computer memory; they’re certainly not worth 30 seconds of an intelligent, relatively well educated, mature person’s time. They eat up cyber-space bandwidth available for sensible, potentially productive, communications between thinking, intelligent humans, so why not get rid of them?
You may replay to, or comment on this post, by sending an e-mail to jgn@jgnash.com, but please, even if you find my name on such as Facebook, or Linkedin, don’t leave a message there, because I’ll never–ever– see it.
Mindless, selfish greed, which has plagued mankind from the beginning, has long been used, by unethical, dangerously-ambitious persons, as a tool with which to achieve positions of power and prestige. Politicians have made ever increasing use of that human frailty to win elections, by simply promising a naïve electorate, more for doing less. Of course, that is a recipe for economic disaster, which we can see being demonstrated today on the streets of Athens and Paris, where revolutionary citizens regularly vent their anger at any and every attempt by their governments to economize, and thereby try to save their nations. Will we be next? Seems likely.
On May 6th, French voters angrily and irrationally replaced their less-than-ideal leader (Nicolas Sarkozy) with Socialist Francois Hollande, whose campaign featured a 75% tax on the wealthy, while simultaneously boosting the minimum wage, implementing huge stimulus programs (sound familiar?), and reversing the prior government’s reasonable plan to increase retirement age from 60 to 62. Hollande’s election was bad enough by itself, but almost a third of French voters cast their ballots for a Trotskyite (whose primary appeal was in a popular promise to confiscate the incomes of the wealthy). Instead of a reasonable, sensible attempt to slow or halt the nation’s slide into economic disaster, the ignorant, selfish masses grasp at hollow promises of “solution without sacrifice.”
A couple of weeks earlier, the Netherlands government fell, when it was unable to agree on an economic austerity plan. And in Greece, a reported 60% of the voters opted for fringe radical political candidates, which generally oppose any and all sensible efforts to save the nation’s tottering economy. Again, the general public is unwilling to accept any plan that involves personal sacrifice, so they are attracted to candidates that promise, impossibly, to save the nation’s rotten economy without any sacrifice by its citizens. The end result could be an end to the European Union, with major destructive economic results for the World.
What we are witnessing is a spreading revolt against changing the economic status quo, which features generous pay for less and less work; with government provided education, health care, and guaranteed, generous, retirement benefits at an early age. The lesson is, of course, “Once given, unwise gifts cannot easily be taken away.” But, here at home, our President seems to be fecklessly handing out still more economic gifts, which are destined to bring Athenian-style street riots to Washington, New York, Chicago, Detroit, and on across these once-fruited plains. Mr. Obama, Mizz Pelosi, and their Socialist cohorts want increased government support for unnecessary college educations, medical care, groceries, risky and unjustified “stimulus” handouts, and extended unemployment payments, which, they would have us believe, will be paid for by increased taxes on the evil “rich.” It is precisely the careless provision of such Socialistic “entitlements” that has led to the earthquake rolling through European governments, which began playing Russian roulette with Socialist economic policies long before such suicidal practices became popular here.
The evidence, that we are well on our way to repeating Europe’s disastrous flirtation with Socialism, is there to see today. President Obama rallies his immature, inexperienced, youth brigade by promising college students that he’ll fight to save low-cost (i.e., tax-supported) education loans, while also working to provide unnecessary college for everyone. And in Wisconsin, a recall election has been forced on the Governor, whose sin was in attempting to apply overdue fiscal responsibility to state government. Yes, once we have any benefit or handout from government, even if such is undeserved and unjustified, we become angered and irrational when there’s talk of reducing or eliminating that. Clearly, it is far better to avoid creating handouts, than to attempt to correct a mistake by cutting one back or out; but, while European governments totter and fall because of rampant, mindless, Socialistic economic policies, our Federal Government presses bravely onward, promising even more handouts, which are to be paid for by forcing the filthy rich to pay their “fair share.”
The storm flags are flying. We can avoid looming, total disaster by heeding the warnings; by acting now, and in a timely and responsible manner. Fiscal restraint, and effective, responsible management—especially on the part of government—must be implemented, no matter how painful that may be for most of us, but indications are that we will, as mindless lemmings, thoughtlessly follow the pack, and, like Europeans, fight cuts in government handouts, even if such short-sighted, selfish actions lead us over a cliff.
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column by j.g.nash. Relevant comment may be sent to jgn@jgnash.com.
Just when one begins to think that our general population is almost intelligent enough to walk and talk at the same time, along comes news that blows that theory apart. A recent survey concludes that the average USA family will, during this unending, deep recession, spend $1,078/child for trivial, high school proms.
Now a high school prom is nothing more than a pumped-up dance in the gymnasium. Yes, there were proms way back in the early 1940s (when I graduated from high school, in New York’s upscale Westchester County). Although the average household income there was then in the top 5% nationwide, boys typically spent $5 on a corsage for their prom date; the girls had no relevant expenses at all; young men typically wore just their “Sunday go to meeting” suit; the young ladies (most were such in that time) were a bit dressier, but their gowns were almost always hand-me-downs, which, with a few home modifications had likely served several generations. Post-prom parties were held at the student’s homes, where alcohol was prohibited, parents were present, and home-made snacks (e.g., peanuts and pretzels) were served. No, you’re wrong: a good time was usually had by all.
In these “more enlightened” times, although graduating from high school now requires little more than being present and seemingly awake most of the time, awkward young men celebrate their great achievement by renting tuxedos; their dates wear expensive new gowns; corsages must cost at least $35, lest the girl be embarrassed; even though most of those spoiled children have their own car, a leased stretch limo is de rigueur; then there’s the expense of a pre-dance session in the beauty salon; and the post-dance party must be held in something such as a country club, where hooch is available (favorite drink: “Stoli and Sunny D” at $10), and the graduates’ parents are seldom seen before noon of the next day.
Some of the interesting data available from the referenced survey shows that the lower income families tend to waste considerably more money on proms than do their wealthier contemporaries. For example, families with total incomes of under $20,000 plan to spend $1,200 per child on proms, which is 6% of their total annual income. It’s not clear whether that overspending is a function of the poor wanting to look rich, or because they simply don’t know how to budget their money. There also were significant differences in prom expenditures by regions: the Northeast (where my high school is, as was previously mentioned) averaged nearly $2,000 per child; the South spend about half that much; and the Midwest, apparently blessed with the most common sense, had the lowest average, at under $700, which is still just plain imprudent.
At a time when this nation is mired in an especially dangerous recession/depression, with no apparent end in sight, we shamefully waste an average of $1,000 per child on a meaningless, hedonistic, flagrant display of wealth we don’t have. Humorist Will Rogers once put it: “We are the first nation in the history of the world to go the poor house in an automobile.” I would bring that classic observation up to date, by substituting “chauffeured limousine” for “automobile.”
When, if ever, will we awaken from our drugged economic state, and come to realize that money spent on frivolous services, such as proms, does nothing to help our national economy; in fact, such foolish expenditures damage our nation, by diverting funds and other resources that could be used in useful production of goods, such as corn, aircraft, and steel. I am not suggesting that we should never do things that are non-productive—it’s useful to have fun on occasion—I instead remind you that my prom, and my sister’s, while held in an especially affluent community, cost us less than $10 each. The priorities that we today place on trivial pursuits, such as a dance, have been blown way out of proportion. The question is: Will we wake up and act with some small bit of fiscal responsibility before it’s too late? Or is that time already here?
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column. The author welcomes pertinent comment, which may be sent to him at jgn@jgnash.com.
I’ve, had it—up to here—no, even higher, with liberal press reports of “grief” displayed by the apparent parents of Trayvon Martin (an“African American,” whatever that may be??). Trayvon was (for the one reader that may not know) a young man reportedly slain by a “trigger happy” man of “mixed race,” because, and only because, the “innocent” youth left the building where he was temporarily housed, to go out in the rain, late at night, to reportedly buy some “candy and canned ice tea” for himself (was there nothing to eat or drink in that house?). The shooter, who was performing duties as a neighborhood security watchman, is said to have considered the youth’s behavior to be suspicious; a physical confrontation apparently followed, during which the watchman shot and killed Trayvon. A trial will be held, at which time we may learn more about what actually happened on the fateful night; until then, the news media, and special-interest groups enjoy a field day of inflammatory speculation and suggestion. Amidst that circus of socially destructive public behavior, stands the “grieving” couple claiming to be the departed youth’s biological parents.
Trayvon’s parents (if they are that) so loved the boy that they somehow neglected to give him a solid foundation in life, by ensuring that he’d be born legitimately, rather than as a bastard. It seems reasonable and fair to wonder, based on that demonstrated lack of consideration for the child from the beginning, what kind of parental care and guidance the youth enjoyed during his subsequent and most vulnerable years? And his mother is so today overcome by a public display of grief at his passing that she could barely make arrangements with some opportunistic lawyers to file applications to secure trademarks for phrases now being repeated by mindless mobs, whipped up to a frenzy by irresponsible, opportunistic, personally-ambitious, racial activists. Her grief was apparently assuaged by spending $650 plus undisclosed legal fees to obtain copyright on the phrases “Justice for Trayvon,’ and “I am Trayvon,” so that she may be able to protect her foreseen financial profit from the future sale of digital media using those racially charged phrases. That’s not “mother love” as I understand the term.
I don’t know whether or not Trayvon’s death was justified or excusable, but I am satisfied that his alleged father and mother are not now suffering significant emotional distress because of his death: indeed, they seem to be happily planning ahead to reap whatever riches may be available as a result of his passing. Further, they apparently cared so little for the boy that they neglected to provide him with legitimate, loving and caring parents, or a safe and secure, traditional family life.
Grief—indeed! This seems to me to be but one more example of how rapidly degenerated morals, and ethics have resulted in fragmented dysfunctional families, which lead to predictable and tragic ends. Perhaps Trayvon’s parents, andU.S.society in general, are the ones that should be on trial. If we continue slouching along the amoral path which we now choose, there’ll be more “Trayvons,” precious few of which will look like President Obama’s son.
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column. The author welcomes relevant comment, which may be sent to him at jgn@jgnash.com.
I’m sure that there are many reading these columns whom haven’t heard of the old “shell and pea” game; so here’s a brief explanation. The operator uses three, hollow, walnut halves, and a single, dry pea, set on a smooth flat surface. He shows the prospective victim that there is indeed a pea, which he carefully places under one of the three, hollow-side-down shells. Then, in a blinding display of manual dexterity, the con man uses both deft hands to rapidly slide and mix the three shells. He soon stops, and asks the betting onlooker to identify the shell hiding the pea. As is then expected, the person that was sure he could locate the pea, loses his money. The secret is in being able to slightly, and inconspicuously, lift the shells while swirling them around, while simultaneously slipping the little pea between shells. That, my friends, is what college administrators are doing in the way they manage their funds. They treat dollars from government, benefactors, or tuition differently, in attempt to disguise waste, while approving unjustified increases in tuition and teacher’s pay.
At a time when colleges everywhere bemoan that they must—simply must—raise tuition and other charges to students, they give undeserved raises to overpaid teachers and administrators, build bigger sports stadiums, and even pass out millions in student aid; often to persons studying subjects of little or no potential use to the nation” (e.g., law, psychology, English, history, broadcast media, sports, and the currently popular, information technology). As has often been said, “There ain’t no free lunch,” and, “All dollars are green”: which mean that $25,000 given to one fortunate student could have been used elsewhere (e.g., to reduce costs of education to others that pay their way), and that sometime, somewhere, someone has to pay that bill.
According to seemingly reliable reports, the number of students receiving need-based scholarships has tripled in the past decade.Georgia’s largest public college, for example, reported that the total number of students receiving such aid grew from less than 500 in 2001, to nearly 1,700 in 2011. If the average amount per beneficiary was only $19,000 (the student loan debt reported for an average college student inGeorgia), the combined bill would be around $32 million. Whether that debt is backed by government loans, or privately funded by grants, those “green” dollars could be spent otherwise, and surely at better effect. Of course, in the end, the person picking up the bill is either the taxpayer, or the person paying the ever-increasing bill for his child’s college experience. Their simply isn’t any “free lunch.”
Mr. Obama, who benefited extraordinarily and unusually from financial aid while spending years in various colleges, is understandably an enthusiastic supporter of making it possible for any and every child to have the same opportunity. But, not everyone should spend four or more years inside ivy-clad walls. We don’t, for example, need more lawyers: there already are far too many, and recent graduates are having a hard time earning the living imagined in their childish dreams. We desperately need scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and others directly affecting our basic, national products, so that’s where, and only where, scholarship monies should be directed. Further, while only a relatively small percent of high school graduates really need to attend college, there is an urgent need for technical skills fundamental to the production of things (e.g., machinists, welders, masons, carpenters, farmers, mechanics, electronics repairmen) and also for some supporting, services-sector jobs, such as nurses, physician’s assistants, teachers, firemen, police, etc.
If President Obama’s understandable-but-unwise emphasis on college for everyone is allowed to continue, we will one day be remembered as the only nation where, as economic disaster brought down the walls, college degrees littered the floor of the poorhouse.
What little money is really there for student assistance, from whatever the source, should be invested where it can best benefit the nation, and not just wasted on some pie-in-the-sky social dream. It should be used to lower costs for students in the core courses (engineering and sciences), rather than to pay for some law student’s relatively wasted time. In these trying financial times, responsible university administrators should be working hard to reduce tuition, instead of raising it so that free rides can be given to more, and clearly questionable, students.
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column. The author welcomes relevant comment, which may be sent to him at jgn@jgnash.com
It has been wisely observed that: Most Americans (whatever that may be today) would quickly reject an offer of a Socialist government, but they will eventually accept such, in the U.S. of A., when it’s proffered in bite-size portions. Here’s just a most recent example of how Socialism is here making headway at an ever increasing rate.
Back in the “good ol’ days,” before FDR broke the mold by introducing and signing several significant Socialistic programs, American families consisted of a man and woman married to each other, and which automatically accepted responsibility for themselves and the children they might produce. In the village (pop 15,000, but literally a village) where I then lived, the one high school had a cafeteria, which was sometimes utilized by a few children from the more well-to-do families, and by perhaps a dozen others, whose mothers packed them a reasonably nutritious lunch. The rest of us walked home for lunch; no one ate any other meal at the school, nor were there even snack machines in the corridors.
Village grade schools didn’t even have cafeterias, but would usually provide a monitored area in which children could eat their sack lunches, which very few brought. A pint of whole milk, and a graham cracker, were available, during the school day, for a dime, which few bought (including this columnist).
In some inexplicable way, we mostly all survived that harsh and heartless policy. Indeed, we not only “survived,” but, in general, developed into far better citizens than are most in these amoral, loose, and liberal times. Strong families were then, and are now, the key to healthy, happy, productive societies. Does anyone need a recounting of evidence to support a contention that today’s national population is rotting at the core?
Getting back to creeping Socialism – I assume it’s general knowledge that schools today have been turned into free, government-operated, day-care facilities, which extend their baby sitting offerings by adding supervised, after-school activities, and by admitting “students” as young as 3 or 4 . Most of us know that, for some years now, public schools have been offering free lunch and breakfast to as much as 80% of the student bodies, but it’s a safe guess that few of you have heard about the recent addition of free dinner served in school cafeterias; also at tax-payer expense.
I can well remember a time (back in the ‘50s) when we were incensed to read about Communist China, where Hillary’s “village” (read Government) raised the children, so that mom and dad could work 14-hr days for the People’s Republic. How times have changed: here today, many of us gladly turn our generally unwanted children over to the government’s “schools,” which shape young and vulnerable minds to its own ends. Think: have schools gradually removed God and country from the classroom; school field trips too often are to some liberal or Socialist event; unwed teenaged pregnant girls don’t get a second look in the hallways, although government funded contraceptives are usually available; graduation rates are low and falling; mid-altering drugs are all too easy to get; and then there’s the kid with the gun, which he learned to shoot by playing expensive computer “games.”
Yes folks, we are willingly, happily, accepting Socialism, and our economy is thereby predictably tanking. Be sure to let your elected representative know that you, also, want free dinner served at your children’s, Socialistic day-care center (also referred to as “school”). While we’re at it, why not demand that three meals a day, and 12 hours of baby sitting, be provided on weekends and holidays. Chairman Mao must have had good idea when he dictated that the Communist government would raise the children, rather than their parents: isn’t China, demonstrably, now well on the way to reducing the U.S. to second, or third-rate World status.
Although President Obama’s public performances, during the brief period in which he was doing other than simply attending various schools, have clearly suggested that he is unfit for elected office (except possibly Mosquito Control at the North Pole), I have long resisted attempts to climb aboard a bandwagon that doubts the man’s legal eligibility and fitness to hold the office of President of the U.S.A. Now, that resistance is weakening.
Many readers have sent me copies of lists of questions about Mr. Obama’s citizenship status, his school records, and other documents that could bear on fitness for the office he now holds. Here are just a few of those –
In attempt to be fair, balanced, and impartial, I have tried to obtain comment, on questions such as those, from the White House, but they have neither responded to my queries, nor even recognized receipt thereof. I do not, as surely do most Harvard lawyers, believe that our President can “take the 5th” and retain any degree of innocence. What possible reason can there be for not putting the nagging question of his legal eligibility to hold office to rest, by simply producing irrefutable proof that he’s a native born citizen of this nation, and has no other hidden secrets of past performances that would cast serious doubt on his character and qualifications?
I honestly now wonder if, in a few generations or less, those of us still alive will be dismayed to learn, from authoritative sources, that Mr. Obama was the first person to be elected President, when not legally authorized to run for such office? Would that make his signature on anything null and void? Just how would we then handle such an unthinkable situation?
With apologies to the “Gipper,” Mr. President, tear down this wall!. Make public certified, official records of birth, school performance and activities, use of foreign passports, alleged claims for aid as a foreign student, and other information potentially bearing on your presidency. What possible, honorable motive could any responsible, moral, patriotic individual have in refusing to clear up damning suspicions, by the simple act of releasing what essentially are public records anyway? So long as you refuse to answer serious and long-standing questions, because of Constitutional protection, this nation suffers – perhaps terribly and tragically so. The truth will be revealed eventually, including any and all attempts to alter relevant documents. Are you willing to accept that as your legacy?
Much is today debated about the Federal Government continually exceeding its authority or responsibilities, such as in the case of that awful piece of health care legislation, which the Obamites irresponsibly and arrogantly rammed through when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Now, there is an important situation developing, which will, in the not too distant future, have very significant economic impact on the U.S.; although it cries out for the clearly established responsibility of the Feds to control interstate and international trade, Mr. Obama ignores it, because, and only because, of the problem’s obvious political ramifications.
Because the Chinese are rapidly becoming a (the) dominate, World, economic power, and because the Panama Canal is to be modified to permit passage of the largest container ships to travel from China to our East Coast, nine of our states are planning to have deep-water harbors that will attract and handle those same ships. The inherent problem arises from the fact that none of those states has the funds for such projects, and so they’re seeking Federal monies; yet, there will never be enough container ship business to make most of those 10 ports profitable, so an investment shared between all contenders will result in wasted funds and delayed vital action.
Florida proposes both Miami and Jacksonville as new, deep-water ports; Georgia is hoping that Savannah will become one; South Carolina pins its hopes on Charleston; North Carolina is pushing for one in Wilmington; Virginia’s hope is for Norfolk; Maryland is betting on Baltimore; New York and New Jersey believe that their already well-established harbors are the best candidates; Louisiana has pipe dreams about one in New Orleans; and Texas wants the big ships to unload at Houston. Only one or two (e.g., New York and Savannah) would be needed on the East Coast, and if any are justified in the Gulf, it clearly shouldn’t be in New Orleans, which shouldn’t even have a river, let alone a sea port. That’s clearly just my choice for where Federal dollars might be effectively invested in this important project; Mr. Obama has, reportedly, gagged Federal agencies involved in port selection, so that they can’t offer their professional opinions publicly, or possibly even, in private, to Congress.
The dollar costs of these proposed port modifications are anything but clear or reliable, but one figure has the Federal part at only $15 billion, which I feel is almost surely many times less than the actual price will turn out to be. If that money is focused of two or three, intelligently and rationally chosen, ports, we’d get the job done relatively quickly and well. If it is split up between 10 ports, the individual states will have to come up with a large matching fund, which they don’t have; so whatever progress is made to upgrade the nation’s ability to handle that predicted huge increase in trade with the Orient, will be slow, questionable, and possible a complete waste of money and other resources.
The Federal Government has a clear and well-recognized responsibility to handle Interstate, and International trade, such as is inherent in this project involving sea ports. They should be on top of this looming problem, but are apparently doing nothing to see that it is managed in the nation’s best interest. Almost certainly, the reason that the Administration is seemingly ignoring the situation involves politics—and only politics. Were the Government to pick two or three ports to be upgraded for Chinese container ships, the six or seven states left out would hardly be likely to support Mr. Obama in November.
So, when the government’s responsibility is unclear, but perceived to be popular with the masses (such as the shameful, health care debacle), the President presses ahead with all tools at his command—even if some are not Constitutional. But in the case of a clear need to upgrade our nation’s ability to benefit from foreseen, increased trade with China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, etc., and although armed with clear, unquestioned authority to act in the matter, our President chooses to sweep it under the carpet; at least until after the elections later this year. Is this the behavior of a responsible and effective chief executive, or what!
Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column by j.g.nash. Relevant comments may be sent to Mr. Nash at jgn@jgnash.com.
