Christmas in America

General George Washington--the first George W.--gave us a Christmas gift that many people don't know about. It's too good to excerpt, so just read it at the link in the title.

Yes, Virginia, There Really Was a Scrooge

Fascinating stuff--to me at least:

He is synonymous with the traditional image of the Victorian English Christmas but Ebenezer Scrooge may have his roots much further afield.

According to Sjef de Jong, a Dutch academic, the Charles Dickens character may have been inspired by the real life of Gabriel de Graaf, a 19th century gravedigger who lived in Holland.

De Graaf, a drunken curmudgeon obsessed with money, was said to have disappeared one Christmas Eve, only to emerge years later as a reformed character.

Read the whole thing at the link in the title.

And as Tiny Tim said, God bless us--everyone.

The Past as Prologue

This could almost be taken from today's headlines:

The Democratic platform denounced "four years of failure" in the war effort and the destruction of "public liberty and private right."

Yet it was not in 2007 that the above platform was adopted. It was 1864.

Read the whole article to see what happened.

Global Warming History

July 10, 1913: The mercury hit 134 degrees at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, CA, the hottest reading of record for the North American continent. Sandstorm conditions accompanied the heat. The high the previous day was 129 degrees, following a morning low of 93 degrees.

Wonder if they were concerned about global warming way back in 1913?

Man On The Street

What are they teaching in school these days? Or, more precisely, what are they not teaching in school these days?

If you're a regular listener to Sean Hannity's radio show, you're aware of his irregular, weekly Man on the Street interviews. One of his staff goes down to the lobby or sidewalk around his radio studio building and corrals unsuspecting people and asks them questions about things that are in the news.

Over the time I've heard these pop quizzes, I've been astonished, and often dejected, with the lack of awareness and knowledge of what should be basic subjects by a citizen who has graduated from high school and stays in tune with the news.

Granted, I've not heard every one of these shows, but have never heard any questions concerning arcane or little known events or facts. There's nothing like what does Article Two of the Constitution address. We're talking about basic things about government and history and current events.

Once, shortly after the annual National Geographic Geography Bee the street interviewer had a map of the United States, absent the names. The quiz was to ask the man (woman, guy, girl) on the street to point out the state that was given. The results were disappointing. Most could point out major states such as California and Texas. A couple of them, who were standing right in New York, were not able to point it out on a map on the first try. In fairness, they didn't actually live in New York. However, one of them lived in New Jersey and couldn't pick out New York on the map. I mean, c'mon, New Jersey is practically part of New York. Apologies to Garden State residents, I know you all are sensitive about that.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007, the subject of the Man on the Street pop quiz concerned The Fourth of July, Independence Day. Flirty Flipper put in a guest appearance to conduct the street interviews. During the prelude, Hannity asked her some of the questions they would ask that day. Flipper didn't fare so well. I guess that proves you don't have to know a whole lot to write a kids book.

The Independence Day Man on the Street result's were mixed. The quizee's ranged in age from about 21 to 33. All high school graduates, a couple in or graduated from college. The best was the first victim, Fresh, who probably did the best of all of them. However, when asked who he liked for the presidential race, he answered Hillary. When Hannity asked him what she had done that he liked, he had nothing, and said he would vote for her because she's a woman and it's time we had a female president. Sean asked if she was a Republican would he vote for her for the same reason, he said no. I guess we're only ready for a female president if she's a democrat.

As discouraging as the early results were, the last victim sent my optimism plummeting. She was a kindergarten teacher from Miami. I'm guessing she has to have at least a four year college degree in something, and maybe even a fifth year for a teaching certificate. She stumbled and stammered over the answers, finally coming up with England as being the country we fought to gain our independence. When asked what the name of that war was, she came up with WW1.

Sigh.

Some will say none of this stuff matters in everyday life, it's basically irrelevant. I disagree. A nation that doesn't have a grasp of it's history is a nation that will lose it's fervor to exist. There are just some basic things that have to be taught, and learned, in school. American History is one of those subjects. We are obviously failing.

The Perils of an Anti-War Stance

Jeffery Lord, a former Reagan White House Political Director, has penned a great article:

John Edwards may be dubbed the "Breck Girl" by Rush Limbaugh, but his real problem -- the problem Democrats should be thinking about even if they can't bring themselves to just say it -- is the real world political legacy of Edwards' brisk sail towards abject surrender in the War on Terror. Even more terrifying for the dwindling ban of FDR, Truman, and JFK followers should be the enthusiasm of all the other Democratic candidates as they elbow each other aside in their frantic quest to climb aboard the Democratic ship as the leading anti-war candidate for 2008.

One has to wonder whether these candidates and their bevy of expensive consultants read history, in this case the history of their own party and the history of anti-war movements in America. The Democratic Party has been here before, in both the 19th and 20th century, and in each instance the perception of a clear majority of the American people that Democrats had turned their back on even an unpopular war proved to have deadly political consequences.

Read the whole thing (link, as usual, is in the title); it is well researched and builds a damning case against the Party of the Donkey's chances to win the Oval Office.

Democrats as Copperheads

Also thanks to No Left Turns, I was pointed to a very good article in the Christian Science Monitor (again, the title of this post is the link) by Mackubin Thomas Owens that compares and contrasts the Democrats of today with the Copperheads that dominated the Democratic Party during the Civil War.

It's a largely forgotten element of the Civil War, but it bears striking – and ominous – similarity to the obstruction we see in Washington today over the Iraq war. Indeed, as Democrats in Congress this week imposed withdrawal deadlines, it's clear that Copperhead syndrome is alive and well.

Owens then chronicles the actions of the Copperheads:

They actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription – including armed resistance in some places and the infamous draft riots in New York City – that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

...and then compares today's Democrats to that standard:

Today's Democratic Party seems to have inherited the mantle, if not the name, of their Copperhead forebears. Like the Copperheads of old, today's Democrats put the entire blame for the war and its conduct on the administration. While the Copperheads of old assured the Union soldiers that the Rebels could not be defeated, today's Copperheads assure us that the Iraqi insurgents are invincible.

The Copperheads of old described Lincoln as a bloodthirsty tyrant, trampling the rights of Southerners and Northerners alike. And they portrayed Union soldiers as instruments of his tyrannical administration. Invoking the USA Patriot Act, Guantánamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, today's Copperheads – from lawmakeres to bloggers – call President Bush a tyrant and a terrorist. Some have even suggested similarity between US soldiers serving in Iraq and Nazis in World War II. Rarely do they censure the enemy in such terms.

Like the Copperheads of old, today's Democrats offer no viable alternative to their respective president's policy except to "end the war now." And just as former Copperheads preferred Lincoln's failure to saving the Union, the current ones would rather see Bush lose than the country win in Iraq.

Of course, rhetoric is one thing. An action to obstruct the war effort is another. With the recent shameful vote in Congress to hamstring the commander in chief's authority and ability to conduct the war in Iraq, the Democrats have assumed Copperhead status by moving from the former to the latter.

The bill they passed is a disgrace, but it is certainly in the best Copperhead tradition. It is a variant of what some call the "slow bleed approach": tie the president's hands while avoiding the responsibility that would go with an action that is within Congress's constitutional authority – cutting off spending for the war.

The principle that once Congress funds a military force, it has no further authority to direct or limit its employment was established during the administration of President Adams and the Quasi-War against France (1798-1800). Congress's action in this case is clearly unconstitutional.

I've probably excerpted enough to whet your appetite, so I won't share his conclusions... go read it all.