Washington Post columnist George Will has made some great contributions to American letters. I’ve enjoyed reading many of his columns. But it seems he is still lost in an old-fashioned conservatism which is no longer alive. A recent column of his proves my point.

There’s no doubt he makes a great point when he says that Americans do not understand their common history. When visitors to the Gettysburg battlefield remark that it couldn’t have possibly been that brutal because there are no bullet holes in the monuments, it is clear that ignorance of history is just a small symptom of the real disease: There has been a decline in rational thinking.

But Will’s own sentiments are just as discouraging:

Ten years ago, this column asserted that disrespect for the national patrimony of Civil War battlefields should be a hanging offense, and said: “Given that the vast majority of Americans have never heard a shot fired in anger, the imaginative presentation of military history in a new facility here is vital, lest rising generations have no sense of the sacrifices of which they are beneficiaries.”

In other words, ten years ago George Will would execute capital punishment on people just for not respecting an idea. But the meat of his own ideological sin is in the quotation marks that follow that Nazi-like assertion, namely, that Americans owe a debt to the sacrifices of which we “are beneficiaries.” In other words, we should honor the dead for giving us what they gave us. But what was that?

The benefits of the Civil War can be summed up in these points:

• Freedom for thousands of men, women, and children who had been considered property to someone else prior to the war
• A unified country that would endure for more than 150 years afterward
• A collection of national monuments to preserve the memory of the massacres
• An increase in government intervention, regulation, and oversight of citizen lives
• The birth of a military-industrial culture that has grown so large and powerful that it might never be brought under control
• A glorification of war in the national consciousness
• The near deification of the man who instigated the war
• An irrational fear of war on our own soil that leads us to insist that all conflicts be fought somewhere else

As you can see, this is a mixed bag of “benefits” and curses. The preservation of the union at all costs has led us to a place where culturally, politically, and socially we no longer respect the rights of other nations. Our irrational fear of war on our own soil causes us to attack other nations when there is no clear need to and without provocation. The fact that most Americans have never “heard a shot fired in anger” simply means that we have no idea of the consequences of war. We somehow believe that we have a right to dominate other cultures for fear that they might pick us with their dangerous and primitive needles. Worse, our fear of a nuclear holocaust and preoccupation with apocalyptic literature makes us see the world in a very cynical dark light. The Iraq War is the latest development in the natural decline of moral judgments that come from a belief in divine right. Somehow, I don’t think George Will is so concerned with that decline, nor are many other media personalities. We are, after all, “the greatest nation on earth” and we must prove it.

I do not deny that we are beneficiaries of good things. Many of those good things were delivered to us by men who sacrificed their lives for a greater cause. But if we are truly to understand history then we must not be so focused on the good benefits that we ignore the downside. We might be better off today in many ways, but if we don’t get control over those who control our military and national policies then the patrimony of our own time will look a lot like that of Ottomans today.

Check out the Gettysburg Pennsylvania Blog.

President Bush took First Lady Laura Bush on a date to Gettysburg, accompanied by Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzales.

But the very next day, Saturday, White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley started bashing Bob Woodward’s new book “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008″. I can hardly wait to get my hands on the book myself as the first two Woodward books on Bush’s war in Iraq were excellent. The first one was a positive look at Bush’s run-up to the war. Now that Woodward has turned critical, however, the spinmeisters are back pedaling.

I love how the president himself handles this interview. Essentially, his defense is, “Uh, uhm, well, uh, let’s see ….” In other words, all this hemming and hawing is getting us nowhere and President Bush has yet, after nearly 8 years of failure, to take any responsibility for his losing policies. Should we ever expect him to?

Clinton’s Message, and Moment, Won the Day
By PATRICK HEALY of the NYTimes

According to a survey of voters leaving the polls Tuesday, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 83 percent of Democrats, while 49 percent had a very favorable opinion of him. Of the latter group, Mrs. Clinton got a majority of their votes.

She was backed by 71 percent of Democratic voters in New Hampshire for whom experience was the most important quality; these voters made up 19 percent of those surveyed.

Mr. Obama, who narrowly lost to Mrs. Clinton, also showed strength among the 54 percent of Democratic primary voters who believed that the ability to bring about change was the most important quality. He drew support from 55 percent of them, compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

This is no surprise. The wealthy do not want change. Too much experience in Washington means we get more of the same. That benefits the wealthy of this country, not the middle class or the poor.

Wealthy people are going to always back “experience” which Hillary Clinton “claims” to have 35 years of. The reason they do so is in hopes that their tax cuts and other benefits that were passed for the wealthy will stay in place. Washington insiders like Hillary don’t rock the boat.

The rest of her votes were actually for Billary Clinton. A lot of people think by electing Hillary that it purs Bill back in office. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton.

We already have enough nepotism and cronyism in the senate and the house. Many senator’s and representative’s sons and daughters have taken office as their father or mother left office. It’s like having the nobility of old Europe VS the peasants like the rest of us.

For 20 years now, 2 families have controlled the white house. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election, that is a possible additional 8 years. The Bush family has young members of their family also ready to run for president soon. That could add another 8 years.

Do you really believe a legitimate democracy can keep two families running the country for 36 years or more? Almost half a century of nepotism?

Couple that with the trend of expanding presidential power as Bush has done and we are getting into very very dangerous territory here. Expanding presidential power while only 2 families run the country could lead to the destruction of democracy as we know it.

People will say that I’m being an alarmist here, but look at the number of times Bush has used executive priviledge. People accepted it because “our safety” was threatened by terrorists.

Give more power to the office of president and let two families have that power and this country is in big trouble. Hillary Clinton does not represent change no matter what she claims in her campaign speeches.

Hillary Clinton represents handing over our country to these two families and getting more of the same. I don’t care who you vote for, but please break the chain of these two power families running our country.

You know it’s really sad how things have changed over the years so much. This country was founded on great principles. It was founded by people who were passionate about freedom and equality. Whether people want to agree or not, it was also founded on religious principles.

In the early days of America, landowners took turns holding public office. They did it to serve the public. When their turn was over, someone else stepped up to serve. They did it for the right reasons.

There were no “career politicians”. That wasn’t a profession. It was real public service. Now we have senators who serve for 30+ years who aren’t qualified to do much of anything else. If not for the connections they make, they likely would be asking someone if they wanted fries with that.

Remember Strom Thurmond? During the confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas, he actually said to Thomas, “I can’t hear you, please speak into the machine.” Machine? It was a microphone. This is a guy who was expected to vote on Star Wars and things that were Internet Related along with other highly technical issues.

These guys get into office and basically serve for life if possible. It isn’t about public service. It’s about money and power. Now their sons and daughters get into office as if we had a monarchy and they were entitled to it because of who their parents were.

Now it comes down to who has the most money to spend gets elected. It doesn’t matter if they are qualified or not. The public goes out and votes for the candidate they are most familiar with which means the one that ran the most commercials on tv.

It’s become a popularity contest. The media has made it a “race”. People vote for who the media says is winning because people inherently want to be on the winning side. If the media says a specific candidate has no chance of being elected, many people don’t vote for them because they don’t want to “waste” their vote.

It’s not about being on the winning side. Your duty is to vote for who you believe would make the best public servant in that office. If you pick someone and you are the only person in the US who voted for them, you did not waste your vote. You exercized your duty as an American citizen and voted for who you thought was the best candidate.

We have a twofold problem now thanks to the FCC. The media has huge influence over who people vote for. Opinion shows like Hannity’s America and Lou Dobbs influence who people vote for. There are even people that listen to Bill O’Reilly although I cannot for the life of me understand why.

The FCC has now relaxed the rules about how many tv stations, newspapers, and radio stations can be owned by one corporation. That means these corporations can weild even more influence on who gets elected and who runs this country.

You may not be one of these people but I bet you know one. Someone who believes everything they hear or read in the news. You probably know someone that believes Rush Limbaugh is a political genius and should run for president himself. You may know someone that thinks Bill O’Reilly speaks for the average American.

That is what should scare you. Media influence over who gets elected is a serious problem. The fact that corporations with their own agendas are buying all of these news sources up so they can be the ones you listen to should scare everyone.

Soon, these corporations will be deciding who gets elected. All they have to do is have the people on their tv shows, radio programs, and newspapers say what they want them to say. Then millions of drones will listen, watch, and read and go to the polls to do what these corporations told them to do.

Many people will never believe they are one of these drones. They are so brainwashed that they don’t believe that Hannity, O’Reilly, Coombs, Dobbs, Limbaugh, and others can be told what to say. They believe these guys are sincere and honest and would never sway people one way or the other just to get paid.

Many will say they really make up their own minds, but they still follow the party line no matter what it is or if they truly believe it’s a good thing to do. They begin to believe in someone so much that even direct evidence that they committed a crime would not sway them into thinking of them as a bad person.

I just wish there was a way to get more people to think for themselves and quit following whatever one party or the other tells them to do. There are good democrats. There are good republicans. There are bad apples in each bunch.

But you have people who would never vote for a republican and people who would never vote for a democrat, even if the best person for the job is out there. Ignoring voting for the best person for the job in favor of voting for a party is pure ignorance and against the very duty you have as an American citizen to vote for the candidate you think would do the best job regardless of which party they affiliate themeselves with.

That brings up an issue for another post. The fact that we talk about these two parties instead of the many parties that should be involved in politics and elections.

In 1839, Africans being carried from Havana, Cuba, to Puerto Principe, Cuba, revolted against their captors aboard La Amistad. Their transport from Africa to the Americas was illegal, and they were fraudulently described as having been born in Cuba. After the revolt, the Africans demanded to be returned home, but the ship’s navigator deceived them about their course, and sailed them north along the North American coast to Long Island, New York. The schooner was subsequently taken into custody by the United States Navy; and the Africans, who were deemed salvage from the vessel, were taken to Connecticut to be sold as slaves. There ensued a widely publicized court case about the ship and the legal status of the African captives. This incident figured prominently in abolitionism in the United States.

All of history is a record of sin and injustice. This particular instance is interesting because La Amistad is Spanish for “friendship,” yet how unfriendly a notion it is to capture other men and sell them off as slaves. Another thing that matters here is how the U.S. government played party to the injustice. In the land of the free and the brave there is yet another example of hypocrisy and darkness masquerading as light. Under the guise of honor and respectability, the U.S. Navy and some of its members made a mockery of U.S. law and the human condition, much like the incident at Guantanamo Bay - you remember, the one where no U.S. soldier engaged in torture? Well, as it turns out, torture is an American tradition.

News and Media Blog