The Killer Angels
By Michael Shaara
I enjoy history novels as they provide lessons from the past to navigate the shoals of the present. They do so in an entertaining way. Known and unknown, two sides of the same coin, the currency of war, could benefit from history when making ‘either-or’ decisions. Without it, beyond a coin flip, unknown has the upper hand in shaping not only the strategy but he outcome of at least the battle and on occasion the war, including why you fought it. In this review I conclude with lessons learned than may be applied to decisions you make in November 2012.
In our American Civil War, the troops from both sides were converging on Gettysburg, neither side knowing exactly who or how many as late as the day before the first day of the battle. Then there was the dynamic of what to believe from your Scouts. Robert E. Lee suffered from this in two ways. He didn’t trust his spies, and he trusted General Stuart of the Confederate Calvary who was out doing anything but following orders. The Union's Buford's Calvary strategy on day one was, based on limited intelligence and counting on battle instinct. Buford was already digging in on Cemetery Hill and Lee discounted that information as being a Militia of townspeople. This author portrays the first shot early morning of Gettysburg came from a picket line soldier from Buford's Calvary acting on Buford's orders into the advancing Rebel Army.
The first day…Buford’s stand held the Rebels at bay long enough for Union reinforcement to arrive and hold the high ground While Buford’s acts were courageous and strategic, two dynamics made the difference. First General Lee, not having accurate intelligence as to who was on Cemetery Hill, gave orders to proceed with caution. The orders were due to the unknown that should have been known had his Cavalry General Stuart followed orders and already been to Gettysburg. This combined with General Ewell freezing ‘like a pond in the dark” gave the Confederates the town of Gettysburg, but left the advantageous high ground to the Union Army. It was an inverse predicament to Fredericksburg, where the Confederate Army held the high ground and prevailed. Like Fredericksburg, there was too much momentum to reverse the pending conflict. The unknown set the stage for unmerciful carnage.
Lee's second day strategy dealt with some known and unknowns. He knew the first day's victory was due to numeric superiority against a Union Army that was just beginning to form, unbeknownst to him. He gave instruction to his Generals to proceed to Gettysburg with caution. Not having surveyed the town with that order he was not aware of the importance of achieving high ground immediately south of the town. Arriving in Gettysburg during the first day's battle he gave orders to General Ewell to take Cemetery Hill, the first hill. Ewell froze; they had the advantage in terms of battle momentum but did not take Cemetery Hill.
This allowed Union forces to dig, and bought time to replenish and reinforce in mass. Had General Stuart’s Calvary been available Lee would have had advance lay of the land and knowledge of Union troop strength. Instead of an order to preceed with caution, Lee would likely have stated Cemetery Hill and all high ground as an objective. Failures of Stuart and Ewell left the Rebels with a captured town and the Union digging in on high ground.
Lee's second day strategic orders were an ‘en echelon’ assault. Longstreet's orders were to sweep right and attack Cemetery Hill by surprise. In the middle of his march he realized he needed a different route than planned. This took extra time. When they were finally in position his army was tired from the march before and General Hoods regiment was facing a charge up a hill where the hill alone wad insurmountable. Both Hood and Longstreet knew at this time. Had Lee held better intelligence in the morning, an attack from the rear would have been included in the morning orders. Missing was intelligence that would have come from Stuart. What was missing was Stuart that would have carried out Lee’s orders.
The folly of day one battle was a clear display of undisciplined orders leading to lack of intelligence. Lomgstreet knew Lee’s strategy was flawed. He had the intelligence of a spy that Lee gave half hearted attention to. With General Stuart gallivanting his cavalry across Pennsylvania, not in accord with Lee’s orders, he gave Longstreet orders to attack straight up Cemetery Ridge. But Longstreet insisted on following Lee's morning orders. On day one the battlefield intelligence was much better in the afternoon than the morning, but the orders of the morning prevailed. Communications in that era did not allow for change in strategy. Strict army discipline let orders get in the way.
The high ground, creative initiative, and shear instinctive courage gave Colonel Chamberlain’s Maine regiment gave the Union army a strategic battle second day victory that forced an even more difficult battle plan for Lee on the third and final day of the battle of Gettysburg. In the days leading up to Chamberlain’s march to Gettysburg he was ordered to discipline Union deserters from his home state of Maine. He could not find it within him to shoot them so he gave them a speech to convince them to join his regiment. The result was an additional 200 men that would prove essential in defending the Rebel charge up Cemetery Ridge on day one.
The Rebels charged up the hill with what seemed to Chamberlain’s regiment and infinite supply of men. They came in waves and drained the Union army of their ammunition. In preparation of the Rebel last charge of that day, Chamberlain ordered bayonets to the rifles and a counter charge down the hill at the Rebels. It was that act of courage, akin to the Charge of the Light Brigade, observed by the Rebels that sent them back down the hill never to return. Had the Rebels knew Chamberlain’s troops were out of ammunition, they may had reacted differently. That Rebel charge not only cost Longstreet half of his men, he did not achieve the high ground advantage that forced an even more desperate battle strategy on Lee for the third and final day of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Had Stuart and his cavalry been in Gettysburg for that second day, a flanking attack from the rear would have doomed Chamberlain long before his famous bayonet charge. Since Longstreet’s charge was at the end of the Union defense, a quick victory on that portion of the whole battle field would have allowed the Confederate Army to storm right through the Union Army from the rear. Without this key advantage, the ‘what if’ drama unfolded with the Union army digging in on both flanks forcing Lee to order on day three an attack right up the middle of the Union Army.
Longstreet had grave regret for the events ordered for day and the predictable results. This gave him reason for extreme contempt for Stuart and a high degree of disdain towards General Lee. Lee had, to a fault recognized by Lee himself, a fatherly approach towards his Generals which allowed for critical failures at Gettysburg. General Ewell’s failure to take Cemetery Hill when he had clear opportunity in conjunction with Stuarts failure to show up until the evening of the second day cost the Confederate Army half its troops. Together these were major contributors to the losses on day two and the eventual loss of the Battle of Gettysburg. Lee recognizing there was no one to back fill those senior ranks of General Officer was forgiving and consoling. Longstreet stressed and strained as he was the one officer with the vision to see Lee’s failure. He cried visibly at the beginning of day three, sucked it up and gave the general orders for the slaughter that he knew was ensuing.
Rounding out the strategy of the Battle is on was Sharra’s tapestry of character building through the dialogue of the Generals, .Shaara portrays the Generals and high command of the Southern Army to be gentlemen of a worldly view well studied with a shared longing for their Union counterparts. The dialogue of the Generals intended to espouse the rationale as to why the Rebel Army took to the offensive. With the battle of Fredericksburg having ended in their favor their confidence in the troops was high. Additionally, it was in there character makeup down to the individual troop to be an offensive army. Hence the infamous Rebel YELL. Yet the Generals had been more defensive in their strategy.
Robert E. Lee knew that a defensive strategy couldn’t last forever. The Confederate Army was always on the defense of her country but now they were the invading force. Old and busted up from a fall from a horse Lee tells his troops, “No matter no matter. We end this war the best we can". He put his hand to his chest. Napoleon once said, 'the logical end to a defensive war is surrender.' The collective thought from troop level through the General rank was to attack. For the Civil War student wondering why a Confederate Union looking to for secession form a country would exercise a strategy to conquer that which you have just discarded; here you have an answer. General Longstreet the veteran warrior was the exception. Yet as a General he followed orders from Lee.
The voice of the Union Army’s Colonel Chamberlain becomes the reason why the North is rallying troops to defend their capitol. A colonel a brigade from Maine, he found himself with orders to shoot deserters, fellow countrymen from Maine. Rather than shoot them he gave them a speech, He drew on the reasons for the fight. Not slavery, not independence, but liberty. The same liberty his founding fathers gave their lives for, a liberty not known anywhere but in America. Thus is a liberty once known but seems to have been forgotten by too many in 2011 America; an America whose galvanized difference approach the same legal pitch as did the Dred Scott case.
It was the voice of the character Fremantle who was an English reporter allowed to mix above the Generals to fill in the misunderstanding of views. His purpose in the book is to draw a third party perspective, a European view. He notes to himself the difference between the people of the North and those of the South is simple quality of the man and society. He notes the higher standards in English customs in Southerners. He finds they are still very much of English tradition whereas the Northerners are a collection of big cities with a cacophony of people from all parts of the world. There were no British customs permeating their culture. They were different people and that is what the war was about. In Fremantle’s view this war was about different ideology in two groups of people. In my mind, should Fremantle’s view be accurate, the Americans were fighting British ideals for a third time in the span of four score and seven years. In the next 150 years is seems America has defended Britain with their ideals aside and then suffered from her legacy of Empire.
In an immediately succeeding chapter Chamberlain, an educated professor from Maine, encounters his first black slave. He is alarmed at his adverse reaction to the wounded man. He was alarmed at his negative interpretation of their physical differences, holding
himself superior to the black man. He does not know he had that in him. He wondered if in fact with this new revelation that perhaps Southerners had a point. There exists, in 2011 two very obvious questions in this dialogue going on inside Chamberlains mind. First is the 1863 mindset of superiority, and second the reader cannot help but observe that poorly conceived differences in man at society level too often and too sadly brings them to war, where on the battlefield, eye to eye they see their mistake only an instant too late.
What is apparent is there is no truth in nominalist man, says an author of that time, Emerson. That truth is attempted as each man brings his truth to bear upon another where truths may merge like two primary colors. Emerging is now a new color of truth waiting for its next encounter. There appears only a representation of truth in the mind of man, where acceptance of what is ... Is. Lincoln had to amend our Constitution to deny a society's right to their truth to bring truth beyond society to the individual. In the unforeseen delivery of truth to the individual, the right to State level of society has given way to federalized democracy. The firebreak gap was mistakenly removed to allow for a fire storm of democratic administration, as opposed to segmented pursuit of liberty brought on by the voice of people. There exists today in the wake of Obamacare a parallel argument. Obama signed a bill as opposed to amending the Constitution. Obama ushered in a wave if administrative law akin to Hitler in the 1939s that denied liberty of one in favor of another that pits this country on a decision the betterment through unconscious plebiscite to the whole at the cost of the individual. Do we carry forward our forefather's cause to liberty and to what extent? Do we repeat, honor, and validate, the deeds of 1863 or 1776 in some 2011 fashion?
Ironically in 1915, yet another chapter of prevailing unknown, tells of a British navy fighting an unprepared Turk resistance in Constantinople. Had that Navy Admiral in command known that at the time he chose to retreat from battle on day one, the Turks were out of ammunition, he could have sailed into port and taken the city without a shot. Instead we are the proud owners of a history that provides us with a year long tragic tale of Gallipoli which ended in favor of the Turks and Germans. This changed the scales of military balance and strategy leading to a stalemate and Armistice as opposed to a declared victory, which led directly to yet another World War. Can the world learn from her past?” I ask this simply because in America we are facing difficult international challenges that are taking the same back seat to domestic woes as that in the 1930’s. We have in our leadership a President completely blind to the lessons of history with absolutely no experience for the job, pitted against a candidate pool where an historian and leader experienced in beltway protocol exists. Is the collective conscience of America willing to put aside any question of personal character, for a leader that can lead from the wisdom of history? I say read Newt Gingrich’s books…all of them. And then decide if the method of his thinking and the result of his thoughts, ie Welfare Reform, a preferred alternative to our current leadership.
Cool metaphors
He froze like a pond in the dark.
Eyes sad as a trout
Like wind in wheat
Bibliography:
Page 17: Longstreet thought: new factor. He Spurred the horse, but he couldn't move fast because of the dark. Lee must listen. God blessed politicians. Reynolds was their best man. Why did they give it to Meade? But I am sorry to see Hooker go. Old fighting Joe. Longstreet said “it was then not Reynolds?"
" Rumor was that Reynolds was offered the job but wouldn't have it on
a plate. That's what the paper said." [said the spy]
Note: When you read the preface and the first book of this series you come to appreciate that the senior officers of the war were at one time good friends with common history at West Point. While they were on opposite sides their respect for one another brought on a drama. This also told them how the other would make strategic decisions. This dynamic of the civil war is unique to most wars. The reader of the book becomes intrigued to see the affects of this dynamic from a historical view.
Page 29: [Chamberlain] He walked slowly toward the dark grove. He had a complicated brain and there were things going on back there from time to time that only he dimly understood, so he relied on his instincts, but he was learning all the time. The faith itself was simple: he believed in the dignity of man. His ancestors were Huguenots, refugees of a chained and bloody Europe. He had learned their stories in the cradle. He had grown up believing in America and the individual and it was a stronger faith than his faith in God. This was the land where no man had to bow. In this place at last man could stand up free of the past, free of tradition and blood ties and the curse of royalty and become what he wished to become. This was the first place on earth than man mattered more than state. True freedom had begun here and it would spread eventually all over the earth. But it had begun here. The fact of slavery upon this incredibly beautiful new clean earth was appealing, but more even than that was the horror of old Europe, the curse of nobility, which the South was transplanting to new soil. They were forming a new aristocracy, a new breed of glittering men, and Chamberlain had come to crush it. But he was fighting for dignity of man and in that way he was fighting for himself. If men were equal in America, all these former Poles and English and Czechs and blacks, then they were equal everywhere and there was no such reality as a foreigner; there were only free men and slaves. And so it was not even patriotism but a new faith. The Frenchman may fight for France, but the American fights for mankind, for freedom, for the people not the land.
My comment: My only consternation in this comes of Shaara’s choice of words. Could he have better chosen liberty over equality? I say this in the wake of Lincoln’s actions America has drifted from a Republic to a democracy. Today’s entitlement democratic society demands equality in the form of material comforts, which is much more than the liberty to ferret out those comforts on your own. Rome fell on this same slippery slope.
Page 70: They stood up as Longstreet approached. Sorrel’s face was flush. Jim Kemper was not finished with argument, Longstreet or no. To Freemantle he went on: “You must tell them, and make it plain, that what we are fighting for is our freedom from the rule of what is to us foreign government. That’s all we want and that’s what this war is about. We established this country in the first place with strong state governments just for that reason, to avoid a central tyranny.
My comment: The contradictions in this run rampant. First, to be clear, this is the dialogue in the Southern camp with a European journalist. Sorrel’s argument is from that of a succeeding group of States calling themselves a new country by the name of Confederate States of America, speaking to the values of the Nation they have succeeded from. When you contrast this with the previous words of Chamberlain, you find that the South succeeds from the North in aspiration to reclaim the values of old Europe, of whom their forefathers fought to ‘succeed’ from four score and seven year prior.
Looking at where we are in 2011, both the North and the South lost their way.
Page 84: Lee said “I once swore to defend this ground.” He looked across the misty grove. “No matter. No matter. We end this war as best we can.” He put his hand to his chest. “Napoleon once said, ‘The logical end to defensive warfare is surrender.’
Page 144: Lee said. “I had hoped you would move on through the town and take that hill.”
Ewell blinked, rubbed his nose, looked as Early, looked at Rodes, patted his thigh. Lee watching, felt a sudden acute depression.
Ewell said, “I didn't think ir was ah practical. We were waiting ah for many reasons. We had marched all day, and fought, and your orders were caution against bringing on a general engagement.”
Page 145: Ewell went on nodding. Lee looked at Rodes, who said, “You may remember, sir that I passed over this ground a few days ago and am familiar with it. The hiss is named Cemetery Hill. It has another hill beyond it, also occupied. It will be a vary strong position.”
Page 146: Rodes looked up, glanced away, shrugged. [Rodes to Ewell] “We’ll attack, of course. But the men have had a good fight. And it will be a strong position.” He looked up at Ewell, then quickly away. “I’m sorry we did not take it today.”
“Well” said Lee, “Today is done”
My comment: Shaara makes it clear that Lee accepted the fact that he was out of Generals and that he had to deal with their mistakes in a forgiving manner. Lincoln had the same problem in incompetent Generals. However he had reserves to call upon.
Page 147: “Longstreet is on the defensive again.” Erly grinned. “I suppose that’s to be expected. But really sire, it seems to me, we are here and the enemy is there, and Hill and General Ewell have engaged and Longstreet has not. If Longstreet can be induced to attack on the right, we can give you this hill tomorrow.”
Lee said, “ If we do not withdraw, and if we do not maneuver in the face of the enemy, then we must attack. There is no other alternative.” He rose not waiting for a answer.
My comment: a fate accompli
Page 171: Freemantle, [the European reporter] says [to Longstreet] “I say sire you wont be attacking for a bit?
Longstreet shook his head
“Then, ah, if I may be so bold, what’s to prevent the Yankees from attacking you?”
Longstreet looked at Hood.
“I mean ah, I don’t’ see that you have bothered to entrench,” Freemantle went on/
Longstreet grinned at Hood.
“ An interesting thought.” Longstreet smiled, I confess, it had not occurred to me.”
“Me neither Hood said.”
“well.” Longstreet hedged. He grinned, reached up along the edge of his hat, and scratched his head. ‘I guess not.” More soberly, he turned to Fremantle. “it would be most unlike General Mede to attack.
Page 173: [Freemantle’s view of the South] Um great experiment. In democracy. The equality of rabble. In not much more than a generation they have come back to class. As the French have done. What a tragic thing. That Revolution. Bloody George was a bloody fool. But no matter. The experiment doesn’t work. Give them fifty years and all that equality rot is gone. Here they have that same love of land and of tradition, of the right form, of breeding, in their horses, their women.
My comment: Envy as the opposite to greed. Equality – could it be the opposite of liberty?
Page 179: [Upon tending to a run away slave] Chamberlain felt an oddness, a crawly hesitation, not wanting to touch him. He shook his head, amazed at himself. He saw: palm of the hand almost white; blood dries normally, skin seems dusty. But he could not tell whether it was dust or a natural sheen of light on the hair above the black skin. But he felt it again a flutter of unmistakable revulsion….He had not expected this feeling. He had not even known this feeling was there. He remembered suddenly a conversation with a Southerner a long time ago, before the war, a Baptist minister. White complacent gace sense of bland enormous superiority” ‘my dear man, you have to live among them, you simply don’t understand.’
Kilrain said, “ and this is what it’s all about.”
[Chamberlain] backed off. He stared at the palm of his own hand. A matter of skin. A matter of color. The reaction is instinctive. Any alien thing. And yet Chamberlain was ashamed; he had not known it was there.He thought: if I feel this way, an educated man… what was in God’s mind?
He remembered the minister: and what if it is you who are wrong after all?
Page 187 - 188: Kilrain said; I tried to point out that a man is not a horse, and he replied, very patiently, that that was the thing I did not understand, that a Negro was not a man.
“But then he pointed out that he could not apologize for his views because they were honestly held. And I had to see he was right there. … I had one of those moments when you feel that the rest of the world is right, then you remember you yourself have gone mad.
“ Colonel, you’re a lovely man.” He shook his head. “I see at last a great difference between us, and yet I admire ye, lad. You’re a idealist, praise be.
Kilrain rubbed his nose, brooding. The he said “The truth is Colonel, that there is no divine spark, bless you. There’s many man alive no more value than a dead dog. Believe me, when you’ve seen them each hang together…Equality? Christ in Heaven. What I am fighting for is the right to prove I am better than many. Where have you seen this divine spark in operation, Colonel? Where have you noted this magnificent equality? The Great White Joker in the Sky dooms us all to stupidity or poverty from birth. No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance, not a leaf or a tree. There is many a man worse than me and some better, but I don’t think race or country matters a damn. What matters is justice. T’is why I am here.
Page 267: : God in Heaven,” Longstreet said, and repeated it, “there’s no strategy to this bloody war. What it is, is old Napoleon and a hell of a lot of chivalry. That is all it is. What were the tactics at Chancelerville, where we divided the army?”
My comment: The chivalry was aimed at Lee who as a gentleman General apologized for mistrials of his Generals, and commanded as though the mistakes could be overcome by the rebel yell.
Page 280: [thought Lee] He saw in his minds eye: his boys backing off, pulling out, looking up in wonder and rage at the Yamkee troops still in possession of the high ground. If we fall back, we will have fought here for two days and we will leave knowing that we did not drive them off, and if it was no defeat, surely it was no victory. And we have never yet left the enemy in command of the battlefield.
We have been out gunned. Our strength is in our pride.
My comment: and that is what Lee sent up the hill on the third and final day.
Page 282: [Lee to Stuart when he showed up for battle on the third day] “You were in my eyes. Your mission was to screen this army from the cavalry and to report any movement by the enemy’s main body. That mission was not fulfilled.”
Stuart stood motion less.
My comment: For any fault that one may want to apply to others for the Confederate loss at Gettysburg, none surpass the blatant and arrogant disregard for not just orders, but for the honor of warriors.
Page 285: [Lees thoughts at the beginning of the third day] The decision was clear. It had been there in the back of his mind all that night, as he worked, remembering every moment the sight of his blue Virginia flags goin up that long slope to the top, almost to victory, so close he could feel the world over there beginning to give like a rotten brick wall. He could not retreat now. It might be the clever thing to do, but cleverness did not win victories; the bright combinations rarely worked. You won because the men thought they could win, attack with courage, attack with faith, and it was faith more than anything else you had to protect; that was the one thing in your hands, and so you could not ask them to leave the field to the enemy. And even if you could do that, cleverly, there was no certainty they would find better ground anywhere else, not even any certainty that they could extricate themselves without trouble, and so he had known all along that retreat was simply no longer an alternative, the way a man of honor knows that when he has faced the enemy, and exchanged one round of blows and stands there bleeding, and sees the blood of the enemy, a man of honor can no longer turn away..
My comment: how does Shaara know these thoughts? If accurate one could simply say the Confederates lost the battle to chivalry; a chivalry that had one General gallivanting around Pennsylvania stirring up discontent everywhere, and another General first excusing him and second sending men to their deaths on blind faith..
Page 317: [just before the start of the third day’s battle, an exchange between Lee and Longstreet] Lee asked his advice on artillery support. Longstreet gave it quietly. They rode back down the line. A quietness was beginning to settle in over the field. The sun was rising toward noon. They came back toward Longstreet’s line. Lee said “Well, we have left nothing undone. Its all in the hands of God.”
Longstreet thought: God is not sending those men up that hill. But he said nothing. Lee rode away.
Page 320: “Meede wanted to pull the whole army out. He had a meeting of corps commanders last night. He really did.” Pitzer sneezed emphatically…..” Meede wrote an order for the whole army to withdraw, and then held a meeting of corps commanders and asked for a vote….”well hell, all the corp commanders stay. I mean the only one felt like pulling out was Meede.
My comment: Churchill writes that the difference between the Allies and Hitler was consensus management over the dictation of one man’s orders.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Contract with the Earth
Contract with the Earth
By Newt Gingrich
This was a refreshing and insightful book from a political figure with a bipartisan message for us all to appreciate. I got on to this book when listening to an interview of Gingrich on NPR. I am curious if it were not for the timing in fall of 2007, with rise to a high visibility political season, would the interview had taken place. In that interview Gingrich was asked if he is running for President. He said he was not, for the same reason Al Gore is not running. He feels he can accomplish more for the world with regard to the environment as a citizen than he could as President, being encumbered with politics.
What is Gingrich’s message? First is unity in the cause. Not just across national party lines but across international lines as well. Second is recognition that we do not have all the facts, in terms of the full balance of the ecosystems of our planet earth. Third is the facts should not be proprietary but rather universally shared. Fourth, is government at all levels and business need to come together with effective participation and policy, in a cooperative posture. Fifth is education of our youth and remedial education of our elders on the individual contributions through consumerism, philanthropy, voting, and life style changes that can lead to a cleaner environment. All this says a collective conscience with one unified goal is essential. The key yet silent word through out the book is balance.
I was somewhat intrigued at a couple byproducts brought about with a collective conscience on the environment. First was recognition that democratic societies, where the free will of the people is prevalent, are more apt to participate as each individual can identify with their earth experience. Second is that our national security hangs in the balance of our recognition of the fossil fuel problem. Would focus on the environment reduce our focus on a major cause of our threat to our national security provided largely by volatile, non-democratic countries; or would it increase it? In my mind it depends on how you apply your focus. Reduce demand in fossil fuel by improving our technology and then sharing it refocuses everyone on being a good neighbor.
I find is interesting that while the still standing in Feb. 08 and probable presidential candidates they all have agreeable environmental platforms, I find Obama’s record and platform a bit more impressive. His voting record is superior to the other two and his platform calls for stronger international leadership where I have not heard the others reach beyond our boundaries. Interesting, it seems a popular cry today from our “Bush bashing talking heads” is that we should dampen our critique of other nations on their values and policy as though we are an arrogant nation. This would be to ignore specifically speaking to their environmental record as the reason for not endorsing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile Gingrich is extolling the export of our technology commercially, and a call for international policy. There is a reason for my intrigue where leadership requires a genuine personal appreciation of a cause that translates to courage to advocate policy and practice towards that cause.
I did a search on the Internet and most easily found Obama willing to step up to the plate with right message. As a traditional Republican, I make the first move in reaching across lines with a call for good voting conscience as opposed to the “you go girl” mentality in choosing your candidate. We need to be for something, not against something. Its time we look for more than someone who is a divisive “I am not George W. Bush” as we hear from Clinton, but someone who actually has substance with leadership qualities as in Obama or McCain. On the environment we need unity and we need leadership, and if we saw a Presidential run off between McCain and Obama, for once either side would be voting for someone, whereby on the environment issues Obama stands tallest.
I am including notes in my review once again for those who do not make the time to read books. Shame on you who defer your information funnel solely to talking heads with agendas. It is my hope that the snippets will inspire you to read the book and get beyond the headlines or the five-minute take on TV or radio. If you are an Internet surfer, the back of the book provides a list of sites to surf. The more you know the issues and more specifically THE FACTS in depth the better you will appreciate what you as an individual can play as your part in this symphony we call Earth.
End Notes
p. 40 We don’t have a perfect understanding of Earth’s systems and processes; it may be unachievable in the face of such complexity. However, we continue to develop imperfect but useful mathematical models, and we have been able to isolate physical variables in the laboratory. We should celebrate our capacity to learn quickly about such things; and we need to continue funding the search for this vital information. We need to commit to the International Environmental Year project similar to the International Geophysical Year in the late 1950’s
p. 74 Conservation International has identified thirty-four hotspots in its most recent analysis. The degree of lost habitat can be expressed by comparing the 15.7 percent of original habitat with the remaining 2.3 percent of Earths surface now occupied by 34 hotspots, a precipitous loss of 86 percent. Amount them they contain 150,000 plant species as endemics, 50 percent of the worlds total…Hotspots are profoundly rich locales for the world’s wildlife, and the amount of biodiversity in hotspot is extremely high, so these remarkable hotspots represents an urgent priority for conservation. By protecting wildlife, especially undiscovered species, we also protect our opportunity to discover valuable new organic material.
p. 94 Non governmental organizations are driving those conservations because of the NGO’s inherent flexibility and speed…and their willingness to cooperate rather than criticize.
p. 119 Fred Kavli who is funding basic research for fairly open-ended projects in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and astronomy. He has launched fourteen research centers based at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech.
P 122 One model for the new philanthropy is the Clinton Global Initiative that aims to accelerate active philanthropy, especially when it is confronted with global emergencies….
P132 with regard to the decrease in air pollution in Loa Angeles, This is a significant decline, and new technology can take most of the credit for this change. For example, it is estimated that it would take twenty of today’s new cars to generate equivalent air pollution by just one mid 1960’2 car. This goal was accomplished through recognition and regulation. Gingrich adds (paraphrased)Los Angeles is seeking greater federal policies on emissions of locomotives, cargo ships, and airplanes that come in to the Los Angeles basin from outside jurisdictions
P 140 Our national security and our nation’s economy depends on supply and demand shifts that are orderly, predictable, and carefully managed. Chaos is the enemy of national security.
By reducing expectations, it is easier to enable fossil fuel to retain its grip on the American consumer, an it becomes more difficult for competitive industry to gain a foothold, even if the industry is spawned by Big Oil…..our nation will need tax incentives to continue research on alternative fuels…a continued heavy handed policy will only limit the progress in research.
P156 With regard to leadership in environmentalism….In his best selling book, Good to Great, Jim Collins observed that effective leaders channel their self interest into the larger goal of building a great company. Their ambition is mostly for the good of the institution rather than themselves…Clearly , a sustainable environmental culture will require staying power. Today’s leaders must be tenacious advocates for the natural world, driven by results and guided by evidence. Where will we find such leaders? According to Collins…look for a well run company.
P157 A recent study published in the Journal of Peace Research demonstrated that democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitments the non democratic nations.
P 159 In the book Green to Gold the authors identified many ways leading edge companies go beyond mere compliance to adapt environmental perspectives into all aspects of their company operations. These companies mindful of the increasing transparency provided by Internet access to the business world offer proactive pathways to an environmental business culture. Examples are provided
P 167 Because adventure capitalists tend to fund ideas that are nearly ready for the marketplace, the type of arduous research that produces real breakthroughs can only be funded by astute governments. America needs to be that kind of government, but our commitments have wavered in recent years so government incentives for energy research will be issues in future political campaigns.
P168 Mobilizing other countries to join us will not be as easy as it may appear. Many nations that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are lagging behind on their commitments. Canada’s commissioner Johanne Gelinas, said in 2006 that her country has “done too little and acted too slowly” in addressing climate change.
P177 On wild-life preserves, Crane-Medows ( a government preserve) does not live in a vacuum. It owes much of its success to Omaha-born entrepreneur Peter Kiewit, a generous philanthropist who died in 1979, but who left much of his fortune to his foundation….(paraphrased) contributing to the improvement of preserves.
P 188 A return to the subdued style and scholarly depth of the storied Lincoln-Douglas nineteenth-century political debates is a reform badly needed in our time. Media corporations should be working to achieve an unbiased, in-depth presentation of the original ideas, platforms, and philosophies of all political candidates so the American people can select their leaders based on trusted, reliable information sources.
P 189 We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data derived from a diversity of measurement techniques….However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn’t be surprising, given the role human beings have played in other environmental event…however, the debate about the origins and sources of climate change should not be left to scientists alone
P190 In three recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences, climate scientists decry the lack od adequate systems for collecting, sharing, and modeling climate data. We must heed these calls and provide the scientific community with the resources to improve future climate projections. A key first step is the development of a sophisticated data-gathering system with appropriate investment in gathering and analyzing data….The data should be available to everyone. Scientific debate and descent should be encouraged in pursuit of a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our environmental systems
By Newt Gingrich
This was a refreshing and insightful book from a political figure with a bipartisan message for us all to appreciate. I got on to this book when listening to an interview of Gingrich on NPR. I am curious if it were not for the timing in fall of 2007, with rise to a high visibility political season, would the interview had taken place. In that interview Gingrich was asked if he is running for President. He said he was not, for the same reason Al Gore is not running. He feels he can accomplish more for the world with regard to the environment as a citizen than he could as President, being encumbered with politics.
What is Gingrich’s message? First is unity in the cause. Not just across national party lines but across international lines as well. Second is recognition that we do not have all the facts, in terms of the full balance of the ecosystems of our planet earth. Third is the facts should not be proprietary but rather universally shared. Fourth, is government at all levels and business need to come together with effective participation and policy, in a cooperative posture. Fifth is education of our youth and remedial education of our elders on the individual contributions through consumerism, philanthropy, voting, and life style changes that can lead to a cleaner environment. All this says a collective conscience with one unified goal is essential. The key yet silent word through out the book is balance.
I was somewhat intrigued at a couple byproducts brought about with a collective conscience on the environment. First was recognition that democratic societies, where the free will of the people is prevalent, are more apt to participate as each individual can identify with their earth experience. Second is that our national security hangs in the balance of our recognition of the fossil fuel problem. Would focus on the environment reduce our focus on a major cause of our threat to our national security provided largely by volatile, non-democratic countries; or would it increase it? In my mind it depends on how you apply your focus. Reduce demand in fossil fuel by improving our technology and then sharing it refocuses everyone on being a good neighbor.
I find is interesting that while the still standing in Feb. 08 and probable presidential candidates they all have agreeable environmental platforms, I find Obama’s record and platform a bit more impressive. His voting record is superior to the other two and his platform calls for stronger international leadership where I have not heard the others reach beyond our boundaries. Interesting, it seems a popular cry today from our “Bush bashing talking heads” is that we should dampen our critique of other nations on their values and policy as though we are an arrogant nation. This would be to ignore specifically speaking to their environmental record as the reason for not endorsing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile Gingrich is extolling the export of our technology commercially, and a call for international policy. There is a reason for my intrigue where leadership requires a genuine personal appreciation of a cause that translates to courage to advocate policy and practice towards that cause.
I did a search on the Internet and most easily found Obama willing to step up to the plate with right message. As a traditional Republican, I make the first move in reaching across lines with a call for good voting conscience as opposed to the “you go girl” mentality in choosing your candidate. We need to be for something, not against something. Its time we look for more than someone who is a divisive “I am not George W. Bush” as we hear from Clinton, but someone who actually has substance with leadership qualities as in Obama or McCain. On the environment we need unity and we need leadership, and if we saw a Presidential run off between McCain and Obama, for once either side would be voting for someone, whereby on the environment issues Obama stands tallest.
I am including notes in my review once again for those who do not make the time to read books. Shame on you who defer your information funnel solely to talking heads with agendas. It is my hope that the snippets will inspire you to read the book and get beyond the headlines or the five-minute take on TV or radio. If you are an Internet surfer, the back of the book provides a list of sites to surf. The more you know the issues and more specifically THE FACTS in depth the better you will appreciate what you as an individual can play as your part in this symphony we call Earth.
End Notes
p. 40 We don’t have a perfect understanding of Earth’s systems and processes; it may be unachievable in the face of such complexity. However, we continue to develop imperfect but useful mathematical models, and we have been able to isolate physical variables in the laboratory. We should celebrate our capacity to learn quickly about such things; and we need to continue funding the search for this vital information. We need to commit to the International Environmental Year project similar to the International Geophysical Year in the late 1950’s
p. 74 Conservation International has identified thirty-four hotspots in its most recent analysis. The degree of lost habitat can be expressed by comparing the 15.7 percent of original habitat with the remaining 2.3 percent of Earths surface now occupied by 34 hotspots, a precipitous loss of 86 percent. Amount them they contain 150,000 plant species as endemics, 50 percent of the worlds total…Hotspots are profoundly rich locales for the world’s wildlife, and the amount of biodiversity in hotspot is extremely high, so these remarkable hotspots represents an urgent priority for conservation. By protecting wildlife, especially undiscovered species, we also protect our opportunity to discover valuable new organic material.
p. 94 Non governmental organizations are driving those conservations because of the NGO’s inherent flexibility and speed…and their willingness to cooperate rather than criticize.
p. 119 Fred Kavli who is funding basic research for fairly open-ended projects in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and astronomy. He has launched fourteen research centers based at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech.
P 122 One model for the new philanthropy is the Clinton Global Initiative that aims to accelerate active philanthropy, especially when it is confronted with global emergencies….
P132 with regard to the decrease in air pollution in Loa Angeles, This is a significant decline, and new technology can take most of the credit for this change. For example, it is estimated that it would take twenty of today’s new cars to generate equivalent air pollution by just one mid 1960’2 car. This goal was accomplished through recognition and regulation. Gingrich adds (paraphrased)Los Angeles is seeking greater federal policies on emissions of locomotives, cargo ships, and airplanes that come in to the Los Angeles basin from outside jurisdictions
P 140 Our national security and our nation’s economy depends on supply and demand shifts that are orderly, predictable, and carefully managed. Chaos is the enemy of national security.
By reducing expectations, it is easier to enable fossil fuel to retain its grip on the American consumer, an it becomes more difficult for competitive industry to gain a foothold, even if the industry is spawned by Big Oil…..our nation will need tax incentives to continue research on alternative fuels…a continued heavy handed policy will only limit the progress in research.
P156 With regard to leadership in environmentalism….In his best selling book, Good to Great, Jim Collins observed that effective leaders channel their self interest into the larger goal of building a great company. Their ambition is mostly for the good of the institution rather than themselves…Clearly , a sustainable environmental culture will require staying power. Today’s leaders must be tenacious advocates for the natural world, driven by results and guided by evidence. Where will we find such leaders? According to Collins…look for a well run company.
P157 A recent study published in the Journal of Peace Research demonstrated that democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitments the non democratic nations.
P 159 In the book Green to Gold the authors identified many ways leading edge companies go beyond mere compliance to adapt environmental perspectives into all aspects of their company operations. These companies mindful of the increasing transparency provided by Internet access to the business world offer proactive pathways to an environmental business culture. Examples are provided
P 167 Because adventure capitalists tend to fund ideas that are nearly ready for the marketplace, the type of arduous research that produces real breakthroughs can only be funded by astute governments. America needs to be that kind of government, but our commitments have wavered in recent years so government incentives for energy research will be issues in future political campaigns.
P168 Mobilizing other countries to join us will not be as easy as it may appear. Many nations that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are lagging behind on their commitments. Canada’s commissioner Johanne Gelinas, said in 2006 that her country has “done too little and acted too slowly” in addressing climate change.
P177 On wild-life preserves, Crane-Medows ( a government preserve) does not live in a vacuum. It owes much of its success to Omaha-born entrepreneur Peter Kiewit, a generous philanthropist who died in 1979, but who left much of his fortune to his foundation….(paraphrased) contributing to the improvement of preserves.
P 188 A return to the subdued style and scholarly depth of the storied Lincoln-Douglas nineteenth-century political debates is a reform badly needed in our time. Media corporations should be working to achieve an unbiased, in-depth presentation of the original ideas, platforms, and philosophies of all political candidates so the American people can select their leaders based on trusted, reliable information sources.
P 189 We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data derived from a diversity of measurement techniques….However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn’t be surprising, given the role human beings have played in other environmental event…however, the debate about the origins and sources of climate change should not be left to scientists alone
P190 In three recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences, climate scientists decry the lack od adequate systems for collecting, sharing, and modeling climate data. We must heed these calls and provide the scientific community with the resources to improve future climate projections. A key first step is the development of a sophisticated data-gathering system with appropriate investment in gathering and analyzing data….The data should be available to everyone. Scientific debate and descent should be encouraged in pursuit of a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our environmental systems
A Nation Like No Other
A Nation Like No Other
By Newt Gingrich
Grounded in the ideals that formed this country, Gingrich has religious orientation but is not a religious zealot. His basic premise is; to give man a footing of moral consciousness, founded through any religion [or facsimile thereof] that distinguishes between good and evil, and allow the individual the power of society that begins with inalienable rights bestowed upon all men under one God. Gingrich is an ardent proponent to the study of history and this book is a reminder of these core American values, just in case any one of us has lost sight of them.
Gingrich sets the tone of the book building the scene in Manhattan as the American revolutionaries prepared for battle against the King of England. He depicts a battalion aid reading the Declaration of Independence to the troops that creates an air of exceptional reception to its ideals. He describes exceptionalism as the fabric that wrapped this new nation child at birth. Exceptionalism meaning American is an exception to all other nations. This does not imply a ‘Molly Brown’ better than persona but rather just unique. The reader is thinking aaah a good history book. Gingrich sets you back from that just a little bit when he mildly draws contrast as early as page three by introducing Obama as an example of how far we have drifted from that character that once wrapped us and sheltered us. Gingrich defines exceptionalism as that which 'leads inevitably to a smaller, more effective, accountable, and limited government.' he suggests that the American revolutionaries did not fight to have a future standing president 'fight in Libya for the liberties of man in that foreign country, as a nation of exceptionalism obligated to lead the world’, and then turn on our citizens with oppressive policy; forcing free men to purchase health care as his first on a list of policy that contradicts liberty of the individual in America. By page thirteen the book's theme is well stated. I like books like this. The reader is compelled to see it's depth, whether he agrees or not. Says Gingrich; ‘Our exceptionalism is being eroded by those who acquiesce to policy that undermines it.’
The first part of the book draws on a historic review of five principles that constitute American liberty. As the casual reader relives the story of a few of our founding fathers he would likely be saying to himself ' these virtues that brought us American liberty are
being eroded and are now under attack by an over reaching president, Obama and his party of democrats. Gingrich closes part one by stating the obvious and then prescribes a way back. He intrigues the reader to read parts II and III to explore how the five habits listed below of liberty evolved, how they helped to make America exceptional, how they are dangerously undermined, and how we can revitalize and restore American Exceptionalism. He first takes a moment to quote a few notable people to stress the importance of American Exceptionalism.
Ben Franklin: The expression of that principle [liberty to all], in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy and fortunate. Without this ... We [still] could have declared independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.
Abe Lincoln: No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers were deists. They arrived in this new America from Christian Europe. They brought their religion with them and purposely held on to its virtues that provided a moral compass and a basis for a new constitution, and the foundation of American law. In our Constitution Gingrich speaks to the higher authority that American man heeds to with no intermediary, be it a religious authority or a government authority. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [not a life span to 150] This assertion makes some key assumptions about the relationship between man and God.
1. It assumes that God created man.
2. It assumes that God is Sovereign over the universe.
3. It assumes that man must obey an order of justice that God has instituted.
I note first that Gingrich assumes that God is a metaphor for nature. It seems evident however, throughout history that it is the nature of man to violate nature beginning with his violation of another man borne in his belief in scarcity. (Hobbs). Hence man must transcend his nature, I am not sure Gingrich, has given much thought to that. Second I find little coincidence that Gingrich quotes a Founding Father on liberty and then Abe Lincoln who ushered in liberty to all men…in America.
In quoting Franklin “My dear lady we have given you a republic - if you can keep it." Gingrich writes; ‘In a single sentence, Dr [Ben] Franklin summed up the extraordinary drama that would play out for all American history between two vital forces that sustain American Exceptionalism: freedom and responsibility.’
Gingrich writes there are five habits of liberty that come under the heading of Personal Responsibility – Virtue found in Religion, Morality
A. Faith and family
B. Work
C. Civil society
D. Rule of law
E. Safety and peace
Emphasis on these habits are vital to cultivating an engaged, informed citizenry which is needed to sustain a free republic... These habits set America apart from its European counterparts, where monarchs were intent on cultivating passive, obedient subjects unlikely to challenge their rulers claim to power.
I ask myself; where does one observe the erosion of these five habits? In a conversation with a friend of mine, a staunch Democrat and loud evangelist of atheism (a real irony), he said of conserving energy; Look at my toys. I have an Escalade, four other cars, two jet skis. All consume gas. We need to pass some laws or otherwise I wouldn't change my habits." I then think of Al Gore a democrat nominee for president of these United States, who writes a book on global warming and advocates the need for stringent federal regulation while at the same time has one of the largest carbon footprint of any US Senator in history. My friend voted for Gore. Neither acquiesces to personal responsibility. Both advocate though, laws for others to follow, of which only then will they conform ... Or will they?
It is no coincidence that Gingrich lists faith and family on top. He writes; ‘an America that openly rejects faith and the faithful will undermine the surest supports of human dignity in American life. That anti-religious America would soon cultivate a utilitarian culture, described in the above paragraph that elevates the powerful and crushes the weak. But an America that continues to welcome faith and the faithful as integral to American public life will transmit to the poorest and most forgotten segments if society the hope that they too have the right to the American Dream.
I am sure Gingrich is not espousing the fanatical right, but rather the faith found in our founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson who picked out the parts of the Bible that work for him. Note that I used work in the present tense as his work transcended his body and far out lived its expiration. There is no coincidence that Jefferson’s Bible is limited to Christ’s message. Our Founding Father’s held out an expectation that emphasis on man’s moral compass would enable management of a civil society.
I know these people who advocate the adoption of rules, imposed by a supposed 'neutral' government that conform people to society. Gingrich writes ‘It is a utilitarian method that ignores man’s moral footing. In their mind the rules they envision are done so only by those with some innate ability to see right from wrong. Those assumed abilities in this context are what we know as morals. The Church, in theory but not always in practice, makes no assumption that morals are born in the human psyche. The church does not take morals for granted; rather it uses the message of Christ, as did Jefferson, as a moral compass. Contrarily these people claim the utilitarian higher ground, write the laws and then create institutions to correct those who have lost there cardinal headings. In my opinion if the ‘church’ or like kind were allowed to flourish those people of utilitarian methods would find their goal obtainable at a much lower cost to the government than what they have put in place of the Church.’ I can’t help but notice in writing this paragraph that the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, commonly referred to by the 19th century as the Sick Old Man adopted a similar posture. It prompts a question in 2011’s world drama: where did Christ’s message get it right and Mohammad’s message gets it wrong? I know Christ’s message to be about transcendence through love {unconditional love meaning acceptance of things as they are] to one God, nature.
Alex de Tocqueville observed, “In the United States that associations are established to promote the public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion"...The Founders' insistence on limited government and created the space for the flourishing of civic life. In turn, to this day civic groups check and balance government power by fulfilling roles that government is tempted to assume, and by cultivating habits of personal responsibility that make individuals more capable of challenging government encroachments in their affairs. Tocqueville presciently predicted that government would eventually usurp many of the duties that private associations performed so effectively. Look at the American Red Cross as well as many other institutions that are the avant-garde of disaster relief. I ask does FEMA encroach on this society. Or should a limited version of FEMA merely complement all the non-profits that constitute the virtues of American man. Gingrich writes of a society that assumed the role of FEMA and note that post Katrina FEMA is now eroding away at the moral fabric conducive to society of Americans, I’ll also note as a case study that Bill Clinton, a self proclaimed public servant, has done more in the NPO sector in terms of humanitarian aid after his presidency than he ever hoped to do as president of the United States. And finally I remember hearing Gingrich say in 2005 that he would not pursue the office of President of the United States because government is too constraining to get anything done. So what is he really doing in 2011 as a presidential candidate? He is either running for President or laying the blanks for the Republican Party. Given his effort to date it is the latter.
Turning to our struggle with Islamic Terrorists, one would think Gingrich has drifted away from the theme of his book, and has garnered a listening ear with this book in his quest for his presidency of the United States. What follows are excerpts to catch the general gist of his message. He writes: ‘The courage to be free is sustained by the moral capacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be called by name [Obama doctrine], we will not be able to deter - or even recognize - threats to our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our traditional values, then we won't be able to mobilize the fighting spirit necessary to defend America. Throughout most of American history, our American leaders have not been hobbled by the kind of moral ambiguity that characterizes our present administration. [Obama]. Looking at the poor results of [President] Carter's foreign policy, we see that the president failed to understand the natural consequences of scaling back American power- it creates a vacuum that is typically filled by the most aggressive actors.’
My reaction to the previous paragraph goes as follows. You can read in history as early as the Peloponnesian Wars, that a society fears another society that is more powerful, not just in terms of military strength buying terms of economic prowess. The inferior will lash out at the superior as Iran does to the United States as an act of hybris, a term that has evolved to hubris. They impose an affront to your superior to show you are not the lesser society. With this as the nature of mankind as documented by philosophers and historians a U.S. President is derelict in his duties when adopting doctrine such as Carter or Obama. Kowtowing to those who aim to harm us is an imposition on our American spirit of liberty, let alone sending an invitation for attack. Kowtowing to our adversaries makes us slaves to an ideal that is foreign to our sovereignty as a nation. We lose that exceptionalism, exception to the rest of the world. We become like Europe whose history is fraught with strife and international conflict and intrigue. With this reaction I find Gringrich’s inclusion of the subject to be fitting with the theme of his book. Otherwise he is taking advantage of a captive audience.
After a foray into our economic situation of which I am in no adequate position to judge whether he has a good solution or not, Gingrich suggests what you the average citizen can do to incrementally contribute to that which makes America and exceptional nation. Below is a simple list.
Ten Steps to Restoring American Exceptionalism
1. Americans should learn about the issues and analyze how they relate to the principles and history of American Exceptionalism.
2. Once you feel comfortable in your knowledge start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.
3. Question government and argue for the right policies.
4. Educate your [any child, defined as an enlightened(able) of any age person] Talk to them about our founding principles.
5. Insist on schools bringing the principles of our founders back to the classroom.
6. Defeat and replace bad judges. Replace activist judges who feel their elite status prevails over the will of the people or the principles of our founders and their Constitution
7. Reestablish work ethic; do so mostly with your children. Teach them to work hard toward their dream. This is still the one country called the land of opportunity.
8. Celebrate American holidays. Don't just take the day off to buy some furniture, remember the reason for the holiday and talk about it with others.
9. Volunteer. Alex de Tocqueville observed this in early America. Our society is [was] more capable than our government. Regain our societal footing.
10. Run for office. Be a prime mover in reducing it imposition on the principles of our founders and restore the values that go along with liberty.
Oddly enough the list is ten. Why does the individual need to pay attention to these ‘steps’? In short, the central failing of big-government welfare state is that it's designers and current champions [Obama] do not think of people as individuals with inherent dignity who are capable of both self- government and compassion for their fellow man; they think of citizens as groups of people to be organized, placated, and for some radicals on the Left, to molded into "New Americans." That radical goal is too ominously close to 1932’s New Germans. Each American’s adherence to any or all of the above steps is an incremental ‘fire fence’ to the same fate of 1932 Germany, and today’s European social problems. We started out an exception to that rule…it is that exception that allows us liberties still not achieved anywhere else. I have traveled to many different countries. There has yet to be a time where when I clear US customs on my return trip I breathe a deep sigh and say ahhh, no place like home.
By Newt Gingrich
Grounded in the ideals that formed this country, Gingrich has religious orientation but is not a religious zealot. His basic premise is; to give man a footing of moral consciousness, founded through any religion [or facsimile thereof] that distinguishes between good and evil, and allow the individual the power of society that begins with inalienable rights bestowed upon all men under one God. Gingrich is an ardent proponent to the study of history and this book is a reminder of these core American values, just in case any one of us has lost sight of them.
Gingrich sets the tone of the book building the scene in Manhattan as the American revolutionaries prepared for battle against the King of England. He depicts a battalion aid reading the Declaration of Independence to the troops that creates an air of exceptional reception to its ideals. He describes exceptionalism as the fabric that wrapped this new nation child at birth. Exceptionalism meaning American is an exception to all other nations. This does not imply a ‘Molly Brown’ better than persona but rather just unique. The reader is thinking aaah a good history book. Gingrich sets you back from that just a little bit when he mildly draws contrast as early as page three by introducing Obama as an example of how far we have drifted from that character that once wrapped us and sheltered us. Gingrich defines exceptionalism as that which 'leads inevitably to a smaller, more effective, accountable, and limited government.' he suggests that the American revolutionaries did not fight to have a future standing president 'fight in Libya for the liberties of man in that foreign country, as a nation of exceptionalism obligated to lead the world’, and then turn on our citizens with oppressive policy; forcing free men to purchase health care as his first on a list of policy that contradicts liberty of the individual in America. By page thirteen the book's theme is well stated. I like books like this. The reader is compelled to see it's depth, whether he agrees or not. Says Gingrich; ‘Our exceptionalism is being eroded by those who acquiesce to policy that undermines it.’
The first part of the book draws on a historic review of five principles that constitute American liberty. As the casual reader relives the story of a few of our founding fathers he would likely be saying to himself ' these virtues that brought us American liberty are
being eroded and are now under attack by an over reaching president, Obama and his party of democrats. Gingrich closes part one by stating the obvious and then prescribes a way back. He intrigues the reader to read parts II and III to explore how the five habits listed below of liberty evolved, how they helped to make America exceptional, how they are dangerously undermined, and how we can revitalize and restore American Exceptionalism. He first takes a moment to quote a few notable people to stress the importance of American Exceptionalism.
Ben Franklin: The expression of that principle [liberty to all], in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy and fortunate. Without this ... We [still] could have declared independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.
Abe Lincoln: No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers were deists. They arrived in this new America from Christian Europe. They brought their religion with them and purposely held on to its virtues that provided a moral compass and a basis for a new constitution, and the foundation of American law. In our Constitution Gingrich speaks to the higher authority that American man heeds to with no intermediary, be it a religious authority or a government authority. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [not a life span to 150] This assertion makes some key assumptions about the relationship between man and God.
1. It assumes that God created man.
2. It assumes that God is Sovereign over the universe.
3. It assumes that man must obey an order of justice that God has instituted.
I note first that Gingrich assumes that God is a metaphor for nature. It seems evident however, throughout history that it is the nature of man to violate nature beginning with his violation of another man borne in his belief in scarcity. (Hobbs). Hence man must transcend his nature, I am not sure Gingrich, has given much thought to that. Second I find little coincidence that Gingrich quotes a Founding Father on liberty and then Abe Lincoln who ushered in liberty to all men…in America.
In quoting Franklin “My dear lady we have given you a republic - if you can keep it." Gingrich writes; ‘In a single sentence, Dr [Ben] Franklin summed up the extraordinary drama that would play out for all American history between two vital forces that sustain American Exceptionalism: freedom and responsibility.’
Gingrich writes there are five habits of liberty that come under the heading of Personal Responsibility – Virtue found in Religion, Morality
A. Faith and family
B. Work
C. Civil society
D. Rule of law
E. Safety and peace
Emphasis on these habits are vital to cultivating an engaged, informed citizenry which is needed to sustain a free republic... These habits set America apart from its European counterparts, where monarchs were intent on cultivating passive, obedient subjects unlikely to challenge their rulers claim to power.
I ask myself; where does one observe the erosion of these five habits? In a conversation with a friend of mine, a staunch Democrat and loud evangelist of atheism (a real irony), he said of conserving energy; Look at my toys. I have an Escalade, four other cars, two jet skis. All consume gas. We need to pass some laws or otherwise I wouldn't change my habits." I then think of Al Gore a democrat nominee for president of these United States, who writes a book on global warming and advocates the need for stringent federal regulation while at the same time has one of the largest carbon footprint of any US Senator in history. My friend voted for Gore. Neither acquiesces to personal responsibility. Both advocate though, laws for others to follow, of which only then will they conform ... Or will they?
It is no coincidence that Gingrich lists faith and family on top. He writes; ‘an America that openly rejects faith and the faithful will undermine the surest supports of human dignity in American life. That anti-religious America would soon cultivate a utilitarian culture, described in the above paragraph that elevates the powerful and crushes the weak. But an America that continues to welcome faith and the faithful as integral to American public life will transmit to the poorest and most forgotten segments if society the hope that they too have the right to the American Dream.
I am sure Gingrich is not espousing the fanatical right, but rather the faith found in our founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson who picked out the parts of the Bible that work for him. Note that I used work in the present tense as his work transcended his body and far out lived its expiration. There is no coincidence that Jefferson’s Bible is limited to Christ’s message. Our Founding Father’s held out an expectation that emphasis on man’s moral compass would enable management of a civil society.
I know these people who advocate the adoption of rules, imposed by a supposed 'neutral' government that conform people to society. Gingrich writes ‘It is a utilitarian method that ignores man’s moral footing. In their mind the rules they envision are done so only by those with some innate ability to see right from wrong. Those assumed abilities in this context are what we know as morals. The Church, in theory but not always in practice, makes no assumption that morals are born in the human psyche. The church does not take morals for granted; rather it uses the message of Christ, as did Jefferson, as a moral compass. Contrarily these people claim the utilitarian higher ground, write the laws and then create institutions to correct those who have lost there cardinal headings. In my opinion if the ‘church’ or like kind were allowed to flourish those people of utilitarian methods would find their goal obtainable at a much lower cost to the government than what they have put in place of the Church.’ I can’t help but notice in writing this paragraph that the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, commonly referred to by the 19th century as the Sick Old Man adopted a similar posture. It prompts a question in 2011’s world drama: where did Christ’s message get it right and Mohammad’s message gets it wrong? I know Christ’s message to be about transcendence through love {unconditional love meaning acceptance of things as they are] to one God, nature.
Alex de Tocqueville observed, “In the United States that associations are established to promote the public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion"...The Founders' insistence on limited government and created the space for the flourishing of civic life. In turn, to this day civic groups check and balance government power by fulfilling roles that government is tempted to assume, and by cultivating habits of personal responsibility that make individuals more capable of challenging government encroachments in their affairs. Tocqueville presciently predicted that government would eventually usurp many of the duties that private associations performed so effectively. Look at the American Red Cross as well as many other institutions that are the avant-garde of disaster relief. I ask does FEMA encroach on this society. Or should a limited version of FEMA merely complement all the non-profits that constitute the virtues of American man. Gingrich writes of a society that assumed the role of FEMA and note that post Katrina FEMA is now eroding away at the moral fabric conducive to society of Americans, I’ll also note as a case study that Bill Clinton, a self proclaimed public servant, has done more in the NPO sector in terms of humanitarian aid after his presidency than he ever hoped to do as president of the United States. And finally I remember hearing Gingrich say in 2005 that he would not pursue the office of President of the United States because government is too constraining to get anything done. So what is he really doing in 2011 as a presidential candidate? He is either running for President or laying the blanks for the Republican Party. Given his effort to date it is the latter.
Turning to our struggle with Islamic Terrorists, one would think Gingrich has drifted away from the theme of his book, and has garnered a listening ear with this book in his quest for his presidency of the United States. What follows are excerpts to catch the general gist of his message. He writes: ‘The courage to be free is sustained by the moral capacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be called by name [Obama doctrine], we will not be able to deter - or even recognize - threats to our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our traditional values, then we won't be able to mobilize the fighting spirit necessary to defend America. Throughout most of American history, our American leaders have not been hobbled by the kind of moral ambiguity that characterizes our present administration. [Obama]. Looking at the poor results of [President] Carter's foreign policy, we see that the president failed to understand the natural consequences of scaling back American power- it creates a vacuum that is typically filled by the most aggressive actors.’
My reaction to the previous paragraph goes as follows. You can read in history as early as the Peloponnesian Wars, that a society fears another society that is more powerful, not just in terms of military strength buying terms of economic prowess. The inferior will lash out at the superior as Iran does to the United States as an act of hybris, a term that has evolved to hubris. They impose an affront to your superior to show you are not the lesser society. With this as the nature of mankind as documented by philosophers and historians a U.S. President is derelict in his duties when adopting doctrine such as Carter or Obama. Kowtowing to those who aim to harm us is an imposition on our American spirit of liberty, let alone sending an invitation for attack. Kowtowing to our adversaries makes us slaves to an ideal that is foreign to our sovereignty as a nation. We lose that exceptionalism, exception to the rest of the world. We become like Europe whose history is fraught with strife and international conflict and intrigue. With this reaction I find Gringrich’s inclusion of the subject to be fitting with the theme of his book. Otherwise he is taking advantage of a captive audience.
After a foray into our economic situation of which I am in no adequate position to judge whether he has a good solution or not, Gingrich suggests what you the average citizen can do to incrementally contribute to that which makes America and exceptional nation. Below is a simple list.
Ten Steps to Restoring American Exceptionalism
1. Americans should learn about the issues and analyze how they relate to the principles and history of American Exceptionalism.
2. Once you feel comfortable in your knowledge start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.
3. Question government and argue for the right policies.
4. Educate your [any child, defined as an enlightened(able) of any age person] Talk to them about our founding principles.
5. Insist on schools bringing the principles of our founders back to the classroom.
6. Defeat and replace bad judges. Replace activist judges who feel their elite status prevails over the will of the people or the principles of our founders and their Constitution
7. Reestablish work ethic; do so mostly with your children. Teach them to work hard toward their dream. This is still the one country called the land of opportunity.
8. Celebrate American holidays. Don't just take the day off to buy some furniture, remember the reason for the holiday and talk about it with others.
9. Volunteer. Alex de Tocqueville observed this in early America. Our society is [was] more capable than our government. Regain our societal footing.
10. Run for office. Be a prime mover in reducing it imposition on the principles of our founders and restore the values that go along with liberty.
Oddly enough the list is ten. Why does the individual need to pay attention to these ‘steps’? In short, the central failing of big-government welfare state is that it's designers and current champions [Obama] do not think of people as individuals with inherent dignity who are capable of both self- government and compassion for their fellow man; they think of citizens as groups of people to be organized, placated, and for some radicals on the Left, to molded into "New Americans." That radical goal is too ominously close to 1932’s New Germans. Each American’s adherence to any or all of the above steps is an incremental ‘fire fence’ to the same fate of 1932 Germany, and today’s European social problems. We started out an exception to that rule…it is that exception that allows us liberties still not achieved anywhere else. I have traveled to many different countries. There has yet to be a time where when I clear US customs on my return trip I breathe a deep sigh and say ahhh, no place like home.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Song of Wrath
Song of Wrath
By J.E. Lendon
For those interested in historical trivia, I can save you from reading this book with the following chronicle. From the time of the ‘Age of Heroes’ to 450BC Athens ranked number one. The 30 Year Peace agreement of 450 BC leaves Sparta as number one. The battle of Sphacteria between Athens and Sparta in 425BC signaled a quest for Athens to reclaim hegemony of Greece. Her over reaching and loss, not to Sparta but to Boetea, leaves Athens’s quest an illusive butterfly of illusion. She found supremacy for a brief span of a few years time where inevitably war returned and she eventually lost her grip. Ironically the triumph of Athens over Sparta or vice-versa it never came with terms that held complete sway over all of Greece or the outside world. The lesson learned was it was all in the minds of ego, an ego that was portrayed in this book primarily through the oration of Thucydides.
Comparing Athens-v-Sparta with its 30 Year Peace and USA-v-USSR with its 40 year cold war, finds parallel characteristics. Many proxy wars were waged. With the close of the Athens Sparta drama, Argos gained time and space to reenter the fray for supremacy found in ‘‘TIME’’. With the close of the USA-Soviet drama, the sick old man of Ottoman Empire, seems to have awoke with a bankroll of oil money. In the wake of the fall of the USSR, mankind found room for the resumption of ‘TIME’ to be tested once again between Muslims and the world. Hence we have ominous parallels for any reader of the 21st century.
‘Time’ with an overscore on the 'e' was how the Greeks ranked themselves. It was a measure of their worth. ‘Time’ was thought to give a real, almost physical existence in the world: it could for example be taken by one man from another. It could be captured in war. It was not just a Greek trait. I once heard from my Iranian Muslim friend. “Iranian’s do not want anything more than a seat at the table with world powers”, in essence ‘Time’. He also helped me see that they lost that seat in 646 when Islamic Arabs invaded Persia. The path to war follows these steps: ‘time’, hybris, wrath, revenge. With this undercurrent in the psyche of the Thucydydeian man we find it odd the bloodless way we now write about relations between states and the whitewashed diplomatic language of our ‘time’ have weakened our grasp on the power of emotion and psyche in foreign affairs.
Playing this theme in Lendon's introduction on our current world affairs that pits in my mind Muslim's on a similar path against the West asking the question: does the trail fit the story? If so then would you conclude hybris is at the core of psyche the Muslims or the West? Hybris is defined in this book as the act of essentially thumbing your nose at he who holds ‘time’ over you. Contrarily, it is popular opinion today for Western liberal thought, at least among the Press to acquiesce the allegation of Western hubris, a derivative word. Using Greek thinking, considering the superior standard of living, observing obvious status of Western ‘Time’ or superiority, should not the Muslims be charged with hubris/hybris instead? Evidence of this can be found not in Terrorist agenda, but rather in the Madrassas formulation of the Muslim terrorist psyche. The terrorist's actions are only the result of madrassas rooted in their quest for ‘Time’ where wrath and revenge are their modality.
This book uses the Peloponnesian War, the first ten years, to study foreign policy and statesmanship in examining the causes of war. It is interesting to read that all the States of Greece practiced ‘Time’ in their relationship with each other and as well in their war with Persia. In 570BC Persia was a world leader and was so for 1100 years before surrendering to the Muslim moniker and fall from world leadership. At the time Persians, Zoroastrians by faith, were transformed by Arab Muslims. They assimilated to the Muslims, yet to come to terms with their loss of their Zoroastrian faith they made a diversion and founded the Shiite schism sect of Islam. That schism is as deep today as it was 1600 years ago. Its depths are as great as the schism between Islam and the West. Like the ominous parallel of the Peloponnesian era where Argos stood on the sidelines, Shia and Sunni have still to find their place in ‘Time’ with each other. As a western strategy; is now the time to be engaging them?
With history as an answer, after ten years of war where Athens had the upper hand over Sparta who was not without victory, the belligerents came to a truce. The truce was born not in what victories were inflicted on each other or any slim advantage one side might have, but for the mitigation of risk of losing control over those they once mastered. Athens feared revolt from within her colonies. Sparta feared a loss of her allies. The truce and following alliance made Athens the victor without surrender. Athens' goal was to prove equal to Sparta. Sparta's goal was to prove her superiority. Truce being equated to a draw left Athens a shallow but meaningful victory in Greek terms. That victory was short lived. For within a few years after, inter-state intrigue found Athens an ally of Argos and Sparta an ally of Persia where a sound and thorough defeat was Athens' fate.
In conclusion a reader of this book may be found thinking the following. Look around the world for ‘Time’. Look at India – Pakistan, North -South Korea, Japan- China of the 1930s, France –Germany, dormant at the moment, every North American Indian tribe pre European conquest of North America. This book alludes to that character in “Time” vested in society as a root to war. Its symptoms are civil unrest, either through oppression or through economic stress. Thucydides points out: "Civil strife- stasis is the Greek word - has a fearful dynamic of it's own. Whatever it spark, civil strife burns high and soon consumes within it all the forms of division between men, giving license to wickedness under the cover of party and enforcing by a principle of tit-for-tat escalation to ever more fearful methods. When a person looks to another as superior in any way they might respect that person, but underneath their ego gives way to fear driven hybris of which carries through to wrath and finally vengeance. Is there a deed or a characteristic that he who holds ‘time’ can bestow on the rest those who may be prone to hybris to end the cycle of war? My only answer is transcending ‘time’
Below is my bibliography with nested notes. The last note in particular is worth reading. While I look to find a lesson in all that I read, I would have preferred a different author. I view Lendon as a PhD professor who fully subscribes to the ‘publish or perish” doctrine. And forcing his students to purchase and read his books.
Cool metaphor; not yet the cry of trumpets, but the moans of low bassoons
Bibliography
Page 64 understanding the ethos of alliances first and the in particular the status of Argos and Athens is key to understanding the rest of the mid century war.
Note: Argos held ‘time’ over Athens even though Sparta held ‘time’ over Argos. Since Athens and Sparta were rivals, Athens bent her homage towards Argos if for anything else to have an ally.
Page 81: Lacking in the Spartan victory in 446BC was the crucial psychological component that made victory "stick"- that made the defeated take their defeat, and therefore their inferiority in rank, to heart and therefore behave with lowly deference to the victor.
...it is best not to puff yourself up because of the misfortunes opponents says a speaker much later than Thucydides, "but only be confident when you have conquered their spirits". Said Churchill in response to the German smashing of French will, only they be responded to in kind in 1945, thus drawing to a conclusion of two countries propensity for war for hegemony.
Note: this book notes that it's not so much the sued terms at the conclusion of a war but the actual battle that marks the defeat. Making this point 2500 years later we find examples of Germany's defiance of the world in the 1930's and likewise Iraq thumbing it's nose at the world, the United States in particular, in 2003.
Page 86: What broke out in 431BC is one if the most famous passages in his narrative and one of the most quoted passages from ancient Greek historians today, for it encapsulated the cold principles of the contemporary realist school of international relations. "The truest cause of the war" wrote Thucydides, " was the growing greatness of Athens and the fear that this inspired, which compelled the Lacedaemonians to go to war."... This "growing greatness" more exactly atmosphere increase of Athenian' power, dynamis, was a threat to Spartan and her allies. ... This cause is distinguished sharply from the immediate. Events that led up to the war, which Thucydides terms the "charges" or the "grounds for complaint" (aitiai) and "points if difference" (diaphorai), which are not the “truest cause" of the war.
Note: I made it a reading project to analyze the causes of war using the 20th century Germans. I did not land on Thucydides’ theory but won’t challenge it as I may look back and add the theory to the mix in my thought. Does power and it's cousin "fear of power" underwrite the practical causes of war?
Page 87: ... Thucydides and Hobbs, who translated him into English, are the progenitors if the theoretical realism that abides in today’s universities and think tanks, perhaps more important they have molded the vulgate of age. Power and fear are the tools for thinking about relations between states unreflectively employed in the media. Thus if looking out the window we approve of Thucydides’ landscape, we do so unaware that it was Thucydides who cited the window in the first place.
Note: the different primary causes were not prevalent in Greece, nor if there in the 20th century Europe. Is this a mistake mankind has failed to correct? Or is Thucydides’ theory correct? The Cold War never fired a shot because there was no real fear between the contestants. That is only if you exclude the proxy wars, being the complaint underwritten by the Keannan Theory of 1950.
Page 103: the Spartans in ‘time’ would feel that they were waring to refuse arbitration and that their neglect of this term of the 30 Years Peace Treaty had offended the Gods.
Note: I find this correlating to the Gods parallel at least to the message of Christ, the basis of Christian faith. (Though too often obliterated by religious sects over 2000 years) Thucydides, Hobbs, contemporary think tanks and Christianity are the entire same mind yet they quarrel with each other much like Athens did with Sparta. The quarrel appears to be more for supremacy or in context of the thesis of Thucydides, ‘TIME’. Is the spirit of competition found in the Greek Olympic Games, with it's unintended byproduct transcendent in our modern world? Are the unintended consequences really the cause and not the effect or are they symptoms? Is Marx right? The internal philosophy of a corporation is in deed communal where surrendering to corporate missions is required of it's individual business units. Yet corporations compete with each other. This only applies to economics which is a philosophy with money as the metric. How does this translate to nations in competition? Clearly you see this correlation in the 2011 budget debate where the competition in international currency is central to the American way of life. Very rich people understand this and therefore are willing to contribute to America. But at large the middlemen (politician, press) and their pawns are lost.
Page 168; in 1888 Julius Von Pflgk-Hartung had a passive policy of no clear cut victory. He said to active engagement "No Pericles' plans were well conceived 'strategy of exhaustion' had every prospect of winning the war by wearing out the resources of Athens’s opponents. In fact however Pericles' strategy was one of communication: by carefully judged reprisals for the Spartan ravaging of Attica, by humiliation of the Spartans through attacks on Sparta’s allies and by exaltation of Athens by helping Athen's allies, Pericles planned to impress the rank and renown of Athens upon the Spartans and upon the wider world of Greeks.
Page 206: Slaves were, after all, the natural enemies of all free men in a society that kept them in shackles. In a poor world , too, much of a city's wealth was tied up in it's slaves, because buying slaves and putting them to work was one of the few ways free capital could be invested for profit - capital that would be consumed in the holocaust of a single moment were the slaves to be set at liberty. For men locked in civil strife to bid for the support of slaves, then signaled that an unnatural frenzy had come upon Corcyra: there was nothing the men of the island would not do or waste, if helped them to overcome their foes.
Page 211: Thucydides points out: "Civil strife- stasis is the Greek word - has a fearful dynamic of it's own. Whatever it spark, civil strife burns high and soon consumes within it all the forms of division between men, giving license to wickedness under the cover of party and enforcing by a principle of tit-for-tat escalation ever more fearful methods. It is war itself and the resulting scarcity, says Thucydides that destroys human morals and ideas. “War proves a teacher of violence that brings most men's characters to level with their fortunes." War is why “ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared."
Yet Thucydides' diagnosis of the cause of stasis - his argument that domestic strife is usually the child of foreign war - was not true as a rule even in Thucydides' own ‘time’, and was certainly not true in the case of Corcyra, which was untouched by the wider war and hardly, in 427BC, confronted with "imperious necessities"
Note: while the wider war was between Sparta and Athens, there was a civil war between the oligarchs and democracy of Corcyra, where civil strive of that island prevailed over the larger rules of honor held between Sparta and Athens.
Note: Clearly the world witnessed this in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Page 224: in 426 Athens took a new tact on Sparta. Rather than simple revenge, Athens took a posture of Hybris. If Athens neglected Boeotia [an active ally of Sparta] it was not because they considered her a threat. But just as a southern gentleman jostled by another in the streets of Charleston, could coolly decide not to construe the contact as an insult and thus avoid a duel, so did an ancient Greek state in a war over rank, as we have seen, enjoy a certain latitude to fail to "notice" acts of their adversaries - by framing their acts too trivial to deserve revenge.
Page 232: this Greek checkerboard of loyalties in the northwest was no creation of the Athenians or Spartans but simply reflected the hostility of Greek states to their immediate neighbors: thus when one perhaps on the basis of ancient kinship, called the Athenians or Peloponnesians for assistance against a neighbor, that ally naturally allied itself to the other great power. Although Greek in language and habits, for the most part these continent dwellers lived as tribes and clans spread over the land, rather than owing their loyalty to individual cities, as was custom in Southern Greece. They were, then, and old fashioned folk, their men still carrying weapons on their daily rounds, leading to a more forthright, rambunctious, even Homeric notion of mine and thine than prevailed in
the city-states to the south.
Note: oh the ominous parallels of that neighboring track of land from the Middle East through central Asia, post 1919. The fall of the Ottoman Empire has yet to find the civility of the Southern Greek city- state of the forth century BC .
At this juncture of 2011 Barak Obama is making the same mistake as British Prime minister Lloyd-George did in 1919. It was for the same reason: his Empire was war weary and in economic despair. Iraq through the legacy of GW Bush mission and policy will prove to be an oasis of civilization in a sea of 'tribes in turmoil', if history does have a pattern, for the next 20 years. More ominous of historical patterns would be found in the dynamic of US-Sino relationships on a Greek canvas, and the allies of choice of those warring tribes.
Page 275: But the personal hurt of the Spartans and the trampling of the Greek warrior code by the Athenians were not the only forces at play in the Spartan decision to surrender. A singularly Spartan factor also contributed. For Spartans, far more than other Greeks, looked to be commanded in war, and the absence of command [the commanders were killed early in the battle] forced to form a tiny parliament of the wounded to debate their own fate, they proved different men from those, who under orders, were so dauntless. The Spartan authorities had expected their men to behave like Achilles,to choose noble death. But Spartans had not brought up their sons to act like Achilles; they had brought them up to obey orders. Never does the strange contradiction at the heart of Spartan society show so clearly here: Spartans were expected to live the Iliad, but an Iliad set in a totalitarian Sparta.
Page 276: The Spartans surrendered on the seventy-second day after the sea battle in Navarino Bay, in the middle of August, 1 the year 425BC. Thucydides pretends to read the minds of the greater Greek nation as they savored every appalling detail. Luke mere humans, the Spartans had surrendered because they were hungry. They had yielded their weapons to the Athenians: they had not been disarmed and helpless but surrendered with weapons in their hands. They had not fought until they were killed. The root of Spartan power, the martial mystique of the Lacedaemonians that the Athenians had so long both feared to confront on the field of battle and feared to encourage by compelling the Spartans to die fighting, was given a mighty yank halfway from the ground by this surrender. And as for rank of Sparta, the primacy that Athens and Sparta were fighting was over. The answer was obvious to any Greek. “the glory of the Lacedaemonians was cast down," wrote a later author, " because of thei loss of their men on the island."
Page 337: Bresadis [Spartan], pledging to revolt if he should come to them Amphipolis]. The kindly terms hebhag given at Amphilipolis urged along this movement, as did, the earnestness of his proclamations that he had come to free the Greeks from empire rather
than simply replace Athenians rule with Spartan. For he pledged to leave the constitutional arrangements of the rebels unchanged and to impose no garrisons or governors. After a seven year pregnancy, Sparta seamed finally to have brought to birth a son who was in earnest about freeing the Greeks from Athens, the slogan under which Sparta had gone to war in 431BC and that had brought Sparta such
goodwill at war's beginning.
Cool metaphor; not yet the cry of trumpets, but the moans of low bassoons.
Page 380: At the same ‘time’ as she became more successful at shaming Sparta, Athens also saw her estimation if value of shaming acts, as well as her definition of the make up of ‘time’, prevail in the minds of Greeks. Put positively, in terms of honor rather than shame, the Athenians managed over the course if Ten Years' War subtly to shift the definition of ‘time’, of the rank of states, from a preponderance emphasis on Andrei, the courage displayed particularly in hoplite battle, to place greater value on charis (helping friends and taking revenge upon enemies) and metis ( the cunning display of tactics and trickery). Since metis and charis played to Athenian strengths, while Sparta was supreme in Andreia, this change in the way Greeks estimated ‘time’ was decidedly to Athens' advantage. The war over the definition over ‘time’ chiefly depended not on convincing the Greeks directly but appearing to have convinced the enemy. And so it was that in the eyes of the Greeks, the Spartans slowly yielded the battle over the definition of ‘time’ to the Athenians. This was the legacy of Pericles.
Page 381: (Thucydides') realism is the theory of international relations that considers power, the dread of the power of others, and the quest for power that dread imposes impartially upon all as the primary drivers of acts of states.
Note: This book on page 382 makes a case that war is an idea of man, not of God. The US Constitution, 2000 years later fixed that mistake. 21st century liberal America appear poised to remake that same mistake. Power is not of strength Andreia but of previous combination of dominion over ideas and way of life. If one loses his way of life, liberty, his power is threatened of if not avenged then defeated.
And then in the end out of nowhere, within the pages of this book the author makes war about the complex nature of revenge, leaving the dynamics of ‘time’ and hybris as inconsequential. Lendon aside from the detailed spaghetti of events, is found a maddening author.
By J.E. Lendon
For those interested in historical trivia, I can save you from reading this book with the following chronicle. From the time of the ‘Age of Heroes’ to 450BC Athens ranked number one. The 30 Year Peace agreement of 450 BC leaves Sparta as number one. The battle of Sphacteria between Athens and Sparta in 425BC signaled a quest for Athens to reclaim hegemony of Greece. Her over reaching and loss, not to Sparta but to Boetea, leaves Athens’s quest an illusive butterfly of illusion. She found supremacy for a brief span of a few years time where inevitably war returned and she eventually lost her grip. Ironically the triumph of Athens over Sparta or vice-versa it never came with terms that held complete sway over all of Greece or the outside world. The lesson learned was it was all in the minds of ego, an ego that was portrayed in this book primarily through the oration of Thucydides.
Comparing Athens-v-Sparta with its 30 Year Peace and USA-v-USSR with its 40 year cold war, finds parallel characteristics. Many proxy wars were waged. With the close of the Athens Sparta drama, Argos gained time and space to reenter the fray for supremacy found in ‘‘TIME’’. With the close of the USA-Soviet drama, the sick old man of Ottoman Empire, seems to have awoke with a bankroll of oil money. In the wake of the fall of the USSR, mankind found room for the resumption of ‘TIME’ to be tested once again between Muslims and the world. Hence we have ominous parallels for any reader of the 21st century.
‘Time’ with an overscore on the 'e' was how the Greeks ranked themselves. It was a measure of their worth. ‘Time’ was thought to give a real, almost physical existence in the world: it could for example be taken by one man from another. It could be captured in war. It was not just a Greek trait. I once heard from my Iranian Muslim friend. “Iranian’s do not want anything more than a seat at the table with world powers”, in essence ‘Time’. He also helped me see that they lost that seat in 646 when Islamic Arabs invaded Persia. The path to war follows these steps: ‘time’, hybris, wrath, revenge. With this undercurrent in the psyche of the Thucydydeian man we find it odd the bloodless way we now write about relations between states and the whitewashed diplomatic language of our ‘time’ have weakened our grasp on the power of emotion and psyche in foreign affairs.
Playing this theme in Lendon's introduction on our current world affairs that pits in my mind Muslim's on a similar path against the West asking the question: does the trail fit the story? If so then would you conclude hybris is at the core of psyche the Muslims or the West? Hybris is defined in this book as the act of essentially thumbing your nose at he who holds ‘time’ over you. Contrarily, it is popular opinion today for Western liberal thought, at least among the Press to acquiesce the allegation of Western hubris, a derivative word. Using Greek thinking, considering the superior standard of living, observing obvious status of Western ‘Time’ or superiority, should not the Muslims be charged with hubris/hybris instead? Evidence of this can be found not in Terrorist agenda, but rather in the Madrassas formulation of the Muslim terrorist psyche. The terrorist's actions are only the result of madrassas rooted in their quest for ‘Time’ where wrath and revenge are their modality.
This book uses the Peloponnesian War, the first ten years, to study foreign policy and statesmanship in examining the causes of war. It is interesting to read that all the States of Greece practiced ‘Time’ in their relationship with each other and as well in their war with Persia. In 570BC Persia was a world leader and was so for 1100 years before surrendering to the Muslim moniker and fall from world leadership. At the time Persians, Zoroastrians by faith, were transformed by Arab Muslims. They assimilated to the Muslims, yet to come to terms with their loss of their Zoroastrian faith they made a diversion and founded the Shiite schism sect of Islam. That schism is as deep today as it was 1600 years ago. Its depths are as great as the schism between Islam and the West. Like the ominous parallel of the Peloponnesian era where Argos stood on the sidelines, Shia and Sunni have still to find their place in ‘Time’ with each other. As a western strategy; is now the time to be engaging them?
With history as an answer, after ten years of war where Athens had the upper hand over Sparta who was not without victory, the belligerents came to a truce. The truce was born not in what victories were inflicted on each other or any slim advantage one side might have, but for the mitigation of risk of losing control over those they once mastered. Athens feared revolt from within her colonies. Sparta feared a loss of her allies. The truce and following alliance made Athens the victor without surrender. Athens' goal was to prove equal to Sparta. Sparta's goal was to prove her superiority. Truce being equated to a draw left Athens a shallow but meaningful victory in Greek terms. That victory was short lived. For within a few years after, inter-state intrigue found Athens an ally of Argos and Sparta an ally of Persia where a sound and thorough defeat was Athens' fate.
In conclusion a reader of this book may be found thinking the following. Look around the world for ‘Time’. Look at India – Pakistan, North -South Korea, Japan- China of the 1930s, France –Germany, dormant at the moment, every North American Indian tribe pre European conquest of North America. This book alludes to that character in “Time” vested in society as a root to war. Its symptoms are civil unrest, either through oppression or through economic stress. Thucydides points out: "Civil strife- stasis is the Greek word - has a fearful dynamic of it's own. Whatever it spark, civil strife burns high and soon consumes within it all the forms of division between men, giving license to wickedness under the cover of party and enforcing by a principle of tit-for-tat escalation to ever more fearful methods. When a person looks to another as superior in any way they might respect that person, but underneath their ego gives way to fear driven hybris of which carries through to wrath and finally vengeance. Is there a deed or a characteristic that he who holds ‘time’ can bestow on the rest those who may be prone to hybris to end the cycle of war? My only answer is transcending ‘time’
Below is my bibliography with nested notes. The last note in particular is worth reading. While I look to find a lesson in all that I read, I would have preferred a different author. I view Lendon as a PhD professor who fully subscribes to the ‘publish or perish” doctrine. And forcing his students to purchase and read his books.
Cool metaphor; not yet the cry of trumpets, but the moans of low bassoons
Bibliography
Page 64 understanding the ethos of alliances first and the in particular the status of Argos and Athens is key to understanding the rest of the mid century war.
Note: Argos held ‘time’ over Athens even though Sparta held ‘time’ over Argos. Since Athens and Sparta were rivals, Athens bent her homage towards Argos if for anything else to have an ally.
Page 81: Lacking in the Spartan victory in 446BC was the crucial psychological component that made victory "stick"- that made the defeated take their defeat, and therefore their inferiority in rank, to heart and therefore behave with lowly deference to the victor.
...it is best not to puff yourself up because of the misfortunes opponents says a speaker much later than Thucydides, "but only be confident when you have conquered their spirits". Said Churchill in response to the German smashing of French will, only they be responded to in kind in 1945, thus drawing to a conclusion of two countries propensity for war for hegemony.
Note: this book notes that it's not so much the sued terms at the conclusion of a war but the actual battle that marks the defeat. Making this point 2500 years later we find examples of Germany's defiance of the world in the 1930's and likewise Iraq thumbing it's nose at the world, the United States in particular, in 2003.
Page 86: What broke out in 431BC is one if the most famous passages in his narrative and one of the most quoted passages from ancient Greek historians today, for it encapsulated the cold principles of the contemporary realist school of international relations. "The truest cause of the war" wrote Thucydides, " was the growing greatness of Athens and the fear that this inspired, which compelled the Lacedaemonians to go to war."... This "growing greatness" more exactly atmosphere increase of Athenian' power, dynamis, was a threat to Spartan and her allies. ... This cause is distinguished sharply from the immediate. Events that led up to the war, which Thucydides terms the "charges" or the "grounds for complaint" (aitiai) and "points if difference" (diaphorai), which are not the “truest cause" of the war.
Note: I made it a reading project to analyze the causes of war using the 20th century Germans. I did not land on Thucydides’ theory but won’t challenge it as I may look back and add the theory to the mix in my thought. Does power and it's cousin "fear of power" underwrite the practical causes of war?
Page 87: ... Thucydides and Hobbs, who translated him into English, are the progenitors if the theoretical realism that abides in today’s universities and think tanks, perhaps more important they have molded the vulgate of age. Power and fear are the tools for thinking about relations between states unreflectively employed in the media. Thus if looking out the window we approve of Thucydides’ landscape, we do so unaware that it was Thucydides who cited the window in the first place.
Note: the different primary causes were not prevalent in Greece, nor if there in the 20th century Europe. Is this a mistake mankind has failed to correct? Or is Thucydides’ theory correct? The Cold War never fired a shot because there was no real fear between the contestants. That is only if you exclude the proxy wars, being the complaint underwritten by the Keannan Theory of 1950.
Page 103: the Spartans in ‘time’ would feel that they were waring to refuse arbitration and that their neglect of this term of the 30 Years Peace Treaty had offended the Gods.
Note: I find this correlating to the Gods parallel at least to the message of Christ, the basis of Christian faith. (Though too often obliterated by religious sects over 2000 years) Thucydides, Hobbs, contemporary think tanks and Christianity are the entire same mind yet they quarrel with each other much like Athens did with Sparta. The quarrel appears to be more for supremacy or in context of the thesis of Thucydides, ‘TIME’. Is the spirit of competition found in the Greek Olympic Games, with it's unintended byproduct transcendent in our modern world? Are the unintended consequences really the cause and not the effect or are they symptoms? Is Marx right? The internal philosophy of a corporation is in deed communal where surrendering to corporate missions is required of it's individual business units. Yet corporations compete with each other. This only applies to economics which is a philosophy with money as the metric. How does this translate to nations in competition? Clearly you see this correlation in the 2011 budget debate where the competition in international currency is central to the American way of life. Very rich people understand this and therefore are willing to contribute to America. But at large the middlemen (politician, press) and their pawns are lost.
Page 168; in 1888 Julius Von Pflgk-Hartung had a passive policy of no clear cut victory. He said to active engagement "No Pericles' plans were well conceived 'strategy of exhaustion' had every prospect of winning the war by wearing out the resources of Athens’s opponents. In fact however Pericles' strategy was one of communication: by carefully judged reprisals for the Spartan ravaging of Attica, by humiliation of the Spartans through attacks on Sparta’s allies and by exaltation of Athens by helping Athen's allies, Pericles planned to impress the rank and renown of Athens upon the Spartans and upon the wider world of Greeks.
Page 206: Slaves were, after all, the natural enemies of all free men in a society that kept them in shackles. In a poor world , too, much of a city's wealth was tied up in it's slaves, because buying slaves and putting them to work was one of the few ways free capital could be invested for profit - capital that would be consumed in the holocaust of a single moment were the slaves to be set at liberty. For men locked in civil strife to bid for the support of slaves, then signaled that an unnatural frenzy had come upon Corcyra: there was nothing the men of the island would not do or waste, if helped them to overcome their foes.
Page 211: Thucydides points out: "Civil strife- stasis is the Greek word - has a fearful dynamic of it's own. Whatever it spark, civil strife burns high and soon consumes within it all the forms of division between men, giving license to wickedness under the cover of party and enforcing by a principle of tit-for-tat escalation ever more fearful methods. It is war itself and the resulting scarcity, says Thucydides that destroys human morals and ideas. “War proves a teacher of violence that brings most men's characters to level with their fortunes." War is why “ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared."
Yet Thucydides' diagnosis of the cause of stasis - his argument that domestic strife is usually the child of foreign war - was not true as a rule even in Thucydides' own ‘time’, and was certainly not true in the case of Corcyra, which was untouched by the wider war and hardly, in 427BC, confronted with "imperious necessities"
Note: while the wider war was between Sparta and Athens, there was a civil war between the oligarchs and democracy of Corcyra, where civil strive of that island prevailed over the larger rules of honor held between Sparta and Athens.
Note: Clearly the world witnessed this in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Page 224: in 426 Athens took a new tact on Sparta. Rather than simple revenge, Athens took a posture of Hybris. If Athens neglected Boeotia [an active ally of Sparta] it was not because they considered her a threat. But just as a southern gentleman jostled by another in the streets of Charleston, could coolly decide not to construe the contact as an insult and thus avoid a duel, so did an ancient Greek state in a war over rank, as we have seen, enjoy a certain latitude to fail to "notice" acts of their adversaries - by framing their acts too trivial to deserve revenge.
Page 232: this Greek checkerboard of loyalties in the northwest was no creation of the Athenians or Spartans but simply reflected the hostility of Greek states to their immediate neighbors: thus when one perhaps on the basis of ancient kinship, called the Athenians or Peloponnesians for assistance against a neighbor, that ally naturally allied itself to the other great power. Although Greek in language and habits, for the most part these continent dwellers lived as tribes and clans spread over the land, rather than owing their loyalty to individual cities, as was custom in Southern Greece. They were, then, and old fashioned folk, their men still carrying weapons on their daily rounds, leading to a more forthright, rambunctious, even Homeric notion of mine and thine than prevailed in
the city-states to the south.
Note: oh the ominous parallels of that neighboring track of land from the Middle East through central Asia, post 1919. The fall of the Ottoman Empire has yet to find the civility of the Southern Greek city- state of the forth century BC .
At this juncture of 2011 Barak Obama is making the same mistake as British Prime minister Lloyd-George did in 1919. It was for the same reason: his Empire was war weary and in economic despair. Iraq through the legacy of GW Bush mission and policy will prove to be an oasis of civilization in a sea of 'tribes in turmoil', if history does have a pattern, for the next 20 years. More ominous of historical patterns would be found in the dynamic of US-Sino relationships on a Greek canvas, and the allies of choice of those warring tribes.
Page 275: But the personal hurt of the Spartans and the trampling of the Greek warrior code by the Athenians were not the only forces at play in the Spartan decision to surrender. A singularly Spartan factor also contributed. For Spartans, far more than other Greeks, looked to be commanded in war, and the absence of command [the commanders were killed early in the battle] forced to form a tiny parliament of the wounded to debate their own fate, they proved different men from those, who under orders, were so dauntless. The Spartan authorities had expected their men to behave like Achilles,to choose noble death. But Spartans had not brought up their sons to act like Achilles; they had brought them up to obey orders. Never does the strange contradiction at the heart of Spartan society show so clearly here: Spartans were expected to live the Iliad, but an Iliad set in a totalitarian Sparta.
Page 276: The Spartans surrendered on the seventy-second day after the sea battle in Navarino Bay, in the middle of August, 1 the year 425BC. Thucydides pretends to read the minds of the greater Greek nation as they savored every appalling detail. Luke mere humans, the Spartans had surrendered because they were hungry. They had yielded their weapons to the Athenians: they had not been disarmed and helpless but surrendered with weapons in their hands. They had not fought until they were killed. The root of Spartan power, the martial mystique of the Lacedaemonians that the Athenians had so long both feared to confront on the field of battle and feared to encourage by compelling the Spartans to die fighting, was given a mighty yank halfway from the ground by this surrender. And as for rank of Sparta, the primacy that Athens and Sparta were fighting was over. The answer was obvious to any Greek. “the glory of the Lacedaemonians was cast down," wrote a later author, " because of thei loss of their men on the island."
Page 337: Bresadis [Spartan], pledging to revolt if he should come to them Amphipolis]. The kindly terms hebhag given at Amphilipolis urged along this movement, as did, the earnestness of his proclamations that he had come to free the Greeks from empire rather
than simply replace Athenians rule with Spartan. For he pledged to leave the constitutional arrangements of the rebels unchanged and to impose no garrisons or governors. After a seven year pregnancy, Sparta seamed finally to have brought to birth a son who was in earnest about freeing the Greeks from Athens, the slogan under which Sparta had gone to war in 431BC and that had brought Sparta such
goodwill at war's beginning.
Cool metaphor; not yet the cry of trumpets, but the moans of low bassoons.
Page 380: At the same ‘time’ as she became more successful at shaming Sparta, Athens also saw her estimation if value of shaming acts, as well as her definition of the make up of ‘time’, prevail in the minds of Greeks. Put positively, in terms of honor rather than shame, the Athenians managed over the course if Ten Years' War subtly to shift the definition of ‘time’, of the rank of states, from a preponderance emphasis on Andrei, the courage displayed particularly in hoplite battle, to place greater value on charis (helping friends and taking revenge upon enemies) and metis ( the cunning display of tactics and trickery). Since metis and charis played to Athenian strengths, while Sparta was supreme in Andreia, this change in the way Greeks estimated ‘time’ was decidedly to Athens' advantage. The war over the definition over ‘time’ chiefly depended not on convincing the Greeks directly but appearing to have convinced the enemy. And so it was that in the eyes of the Greeks, the Spartans slowly yielded the battle over the definition of ‘time’ to the Athenians. This was the legacy of Pericles.
Page 381: (Thucydides') realism is the theory of international relations that considers power, the dread of the power of others, and the quest for power that dread imposes impartially upon all as the primary drivers of acts of states.
Note: This book on page 382 makes a case that war is an idea of man, not of God. The US Constitution, 2000 years later fixed that mistake. 21st century liberal America appear poised to remake that same mistake. Power is not of strength Andreia but of previous combination of dominion over ideas and way of life. If one loses his way of life, liberty, his power is threatened of if not avenged then defeated.
And then in the end out of nowhere, within the pages of this book the author makes war about the complex nature of revenge, leaving the dynamics of ‘time’ and hybris as inconsequential. Lendon aside from the detailed spaghetti of events, is found a maddening author.
Monday, October 3, 2011
A Nation Like No Other
A Nation Like No Other
By Newt Gingrich
Grounded in the ideals that formed this country, Gingrich has religious orientation but is not a religious zealot. His basic premise is; to give man a footing of moral consciousness, founded through any religion [or facsimile thereof] that distinguishes between good and evil, and allow the individual the power of society that begins with inalienable rights bestowed upon all men under one God. Gingrich is an ardent proponent to the study of history and this book is a reminder of these core American values, just in case any one of us has lost sight of them.
Gingrich sets the tone of the book building the scene in Manhattan as the American revolutionaries prepared for battle against the King of England. He depicts a battalion aid reading the Declaration of Independence to the troops that creates an air of exceptional reception to its ideals. He describes exceptionalism as the fabric that wrapped this new nation child at birth. Exceptionalism meaning American is an exception to all other nations. This does not imply a ‘Molly Brown’ better than persona but rather just unique. The reader is thinking aaah a good history book. Gingrich sets you back from that just a little bit when he mildly draws contrast as early as page three by introducing Obama as an example of how far we have drifted from that character that once wrapped us and sheltered us. Gingrich defines exceptionalism as that which 'leads inevitably to a smaller, more effective, accountable, and limited government.' he suggests that the American revolutionaries did not fight to have a future standing president 'fight in Libya for the liberties of man in that foreign country, as a nation of exceptionalism obligated to lead the world’, and then turn on our citizens with oppressive policy; forcing free men to purchase health care as his first on a list of policy that contradicts liberty of the individual in America. By page thirteen the book's theme is well stated. I like books like this. The reader is compelled to see it's depth, whether he agrees or not. Says Gingrich; ‘Our exceptionalism is being eroded by those who acquiesce to policy that undermines it.’
The first part of the book draws on a historic review of five principles that constitute American liberty. As the casual reader relives the story of a few of our founding fathers he would likely be saying to himself ' these virtues that brought us American liberty are
being eroded and are now under attack by an over reaching president, Obama and his party of democrats. Gingrich closes part one by stating the obvious and then prescribes a way back. He intrigues the reader to read parts II and III to explore how the five habits listed below of liberty evolved, how they helped to make America exceptional, how they are dangerously undermined, and how we can revitalize and restore American Exceptionalism. He first takes a moment to quote a few notable people to stress the importance of American Exceptionalism.
Ben Franklin: The expression of that principle [liberty to all], in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy and fortunate. Without this ... We [still] could have declared independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.
Abe Lincoln: No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers were deists. They arrived in this new America from Christian Europe. They brought their religion with them and purposely held on to its virtues that provided a moral compass and a basis for a new constitution, and the foundation of American law. In our Constitution Gingrich speaks to the higher authority that American man heeds to with no intermediary, be it a religious authority or a government authority. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [not a life span to 150] This assertion makes some key assumptions about the relationship between man and God.
1. It assumes that God created man.
2. It assumes that God is Sovereign over the universe.
3. It assumes that man must obey an order of justice that God has instituted.
I note first that Gingrich assumes that God is a metaphor for nature. It seems evident however, throughout history that it is the nature of man to violate nature beginning with his violation of another man borne in his belief in scarcity. (Hobbs). Hence man must transcend his nature, I am not sure Gingrich, has given much thought to that. Second I find little coincidence that Gingrich quotes a Founding Father on liberty and then Abe Lincoln who ushered in liberty to all men…in America.
In quoting Franklin “My dear lady we have given you a republic - if you can keep it." Gingrich writes; ‘In a single sentence, Dr [Ben] Franklin summed up the extraordinary drama that would play out for all American history between two vital forces that sustain American Exceptionalism: freedom and responsibility.’
Gingrich writes there are five habits of liberty that come under the heading of Personal Responsibility – Virtue found in Religion, Morality
A. Faith and family
B. Work
C. Civil society
D. Rule of law
E. Safety and peace
Emphasis on these habits are vital to cultivating an engaged, informed citizenry which is needed to sustain a free republic... These habits set America apart from its European counterparts, where monarchs were intent on cultivating passive, obedient subjects unlikely to challenge their rulers claim to power.
I ask myself; where does one observe the erosion of these five habits? In a conversation with a friend of mine, a staunch Democrat and loud evangelist of atheism (a real irony), he said of conserving energy; Look at my toys. I have an Escalade, four other cars, two jet skis. All consume gas. We need to pass some laws or otherwise I wouldn't change my habits." I then think of Al Gore a democrat nominee for president of these United States, who writes a book on global warming and advocates the need for stringent federal regulation while at the same time has one of the largest carbon footprint of any US Senator in history. My friend voted for Gore. Neither acquiesces to personal responsibility. Both advocate though, laws for others to follow, of which only then will they conform ... Or will they?
It is no coincidence that Gingrich lists faith and family on top. He writes; ‘an America that openly rejects faith and the faithful will undermine the surest supports of human dignity in American life. That anti-religious America would soon cultivate a utilitarian culture, described in the above paragraph that elevates the powerful and crushes the weak. But an America that continues to welcome faith and the faithful as integral to American public life will transmit to the poorest and most forgotten segments if society the hope that they too have the right to the American Dream.
I am sure Gingrich is not espousing the fanatical right, but rather the faith found in our founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson who picked out the parts of the Bible that work for him. Note that I used work in the present tense as his work transcended his body and far out lived its expiration. There is no coincidence that Jefferson’s Bible is limited to Christ’s message. Our Founding Father’s held out an expectation that emphasis on man’s moral compass would enable management of a civil society.
I know these people who advocate the adoption of rules, imposed by a supposed 'neutral' government that conform people to society. Gingrich writes ‘It is a utilitarian method that ignores man’s moral footing. In their mind the rules they envision are done so only by those with some innate ability to see right from wrong. Those assumed abilities in this context are what we know as morals. The Church, in theory but not always in practice, makes no assumption that morals are born in the human psyche. The church does not take morals for granted; rather it uses the message of Christ, as did Jefferson, as a moral compass. Contrarily these people claim the utilitarian higher ground, write the laws and then create institutions to correct those who have lost there cardinal headings. In my opinion if the ‘church’ or like kind were allowed to flourish those people of utilitarian methods would find their goal obtainable at a much lower cost to the government than what they have put in place of the Church.’ I can’t help but notice in writing this paragraph that the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, commonly referred to by the 19th century as the Sick Old Man adopted a similar posture. It prompts a question in 2011’s world drama: where did Christ’s message get it right and Mohammad’s message gets it wrong? I know Christ’s message to be about transcendence through love {unconditional love meaning acceptance of things as they are] to one God, nature.
Alex de Tocqueville observed, “In the United States that associations are established to promote the public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion"...The Founders' insistence on limited government and created the space for the flourishing of civic life. In turn, to this day civic groups check and balance government power by fulfilling roles that government is tempted to assume, and by cultivating habits of personal responsibility that make individuals more capable of challenging government encroachments in their affairs. Tocqueville presciently predicted that government would eventually usurp many of the duties that private associations performed so effectively. Look at the American Red Cross as well as many other institutions that are the avant-garde of disaster relief. I ask does FEMA encroach on this society. Or should a limited version of FEMA merely complement all the non-profits that constitute the virtues of American man. Gingrich writes of a society that assumed the role of FEMA and note that post Katrina FEMA is now eroding away at the moral fabric conducive to society of Americans, I’ll also note as a case study that Bill Clinton, a self proclaimed public servant, has done more in the NPO sector in terms of humanitarian aid after his presidency than he ever hoped to do as president of the United States. And finally I remember hearing Gingrich say in 2005 that he would not pursue the office of President of the United States because government is too constraining to get anything done. So what is he really doing in 2011 as a presidential candidate? He is either running for President or laying the blanks for the Republican Party. Given his effort to date it is the latter.
Turning to our struggle with Islamic Terrorists, one would think Gingrich has drifted away from the theme of his book, and has garnered a listening ear with this book in his quest for his presidency of the United States. What follows are excerpts to catch the general gist of his message. He writes: ‘The courage to be free is sustained by the moral capacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be called by name [Obama doctrine], we will not be able to deter - or even recognize - threats to our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our traditional values, then we won't be able to mobilize the fighting spirit necessary to defend America. Throughout most of American history, our American leaders have not been hobbled by the kind of moral ambiguity that characterizes our present administration. [Obama]. Looking at the poor results of [President] Carter's foreign policy, we see that the president failed to understand the natural consequences of scaling back American power- it creates a vacuum that is typically filled by the most aggressive actors.’
My reaction to the previous paragraph goes as follows. You can read in history as early as the Peloponnesian Wars, that a society fears another society that is more powerful, not just in terms of military strength buying terms of economic prowess. The inferior will lash out at the superior as Iran does to the United States as an act of hybris, a term that has evolved to hubris. They impose an affront to your superior to show you are not the lesser society. With this as the nature of mankind as documented by philosophers and historians a U.S. President is derelict in his duties when adopting doctrine such as Carter or Obama. Kowtowing to those who aim to harm us is an imposition on our American spirit of liberty, let alone sending an invitation for attack. Kowtowing to our adversaries makes us slaves to an ideal that is foreign to our sovereignty as a nation. We lose that exceptionalism, exception to the rest of the world. We become like Europe whose history is fraught with strife and international conflict and intrigue. With this reaction I find Gringrich’s inclusion of the subject to be fitting with the theme of his book. Otherwise he is taking advantage of a captive audience.
After a foray into our economic situation of which I am in no adequate position to judge whether he has a good solution or not, Gingrich suggests what you the average citizen can do to incrementally contribute to that which makes America and exceptional nation. Below is a simple list.
Ten Steps to Restoring American Exceptionalism
1. Americans should learn about the issues and analyze how they relate to the principles and history of American Exceptionalism.
2. Once you feel comfortable in your knowledge start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.
3. Question government and argue for the right policies.
4. Educate your [any child, defined as an enlightened(able) of any age person] Talk to them about our founding principles.
5. Insist on schools bringing the principles of our founders back to the classroom.
6. Defeat and replace bad judges. Replace activist judges who feel their elite status prevails over the will of the people or the principles of our founders and their Constitution
7. Reestablish work ethic; do so mostly with your children. Teach them to work hard toward their dream. This is still the one country called the land of opportunity.
8. Celebrate American holidays. Don't just take the day off to buy some furniture, remember the reason for the holiday and talk about it with others.
9. Volunteer. Alex de Tocqueville observed this in early America. Our society is [was] more capable than our government. Regain our societal footing.
10. Run for office. Be a prime mover in reducing it imposition on the principles of our founders and restore the values that go along with liberty.
Oddly enough the list is ten. Why does the individual need to pay attention to these ‘steps’? In short, the central failing of big-government welfare state is that it's designers and current champions [Obama] do not think of people as individuals with inherent dignity who are capable of both self- government and compassion for their fellow man; they think of citizens as groups of people to be organized, placated, and for some radicals on the Left, to molded into "New Americans." That radical goal is too ominously close to 1932’s New Germans. Each American’s adherence to any or all of the above steps is an incremental ‘fire fence’ to the same fate of 1932 Germany, and today’s European social problems. We started out an exception to that rule…it is that exception that allows us liberties still not achieved anywhere else. I have traveled to many different countries. There has yet to be a time where when I clear US customs on my return trip I breathe a deep sigh and say ahhh, no place like home.
By Newt Gingrich
Grounded in the ideals that formed this country, Gingrich has religious orientation but is not a religious zealot. His basic premise is; to give man a footing of moral consciousness, founded through any religion [or facsimile thereof] that distinguishes between good and evil, and allow the individual the power of society that begins with inalienable rights bestowed upon all men under one God. Gingrich is an ardent proponent to the study of history and this book is a reminder of these core American values, just in case any one of us has lost sight of them.
Gingrich sets the tone of the book building the scene in Manhattan as the American revolutionaries prepared for battle against the King of England. He depicts a battalion aid reading the Declaration of Independence to the troops that creates an air of exceptional reception to its ideals. He describes exceptionalism as the fabric that wrapped this new nation child at birth. Exceptionalism meaning American is an exception to all other nations. This does not imply a ‘Molly Brown’ better than persona but rather just unique. The reader is thinking aaah a good history book. Gingrich sets you back from that just a little bit when he mildly draws contrast as early as page three by introducing Obama as an example of how far we have drifted from that character that once wrapped us and sheltered us. Gingrich defines exceptionalism as that which 'leads inevitably to a smaller, more effective, accountable, and limited government.' he suggests that the American revolutionaries did not fight to have a future standing president 'fight in Libya for the liberties of man in that foreign country, as a nation of exceptionalism obligated to lead the world’, and then turn on our citizens with oppressive policy; forcing free men to purchase health care as his first on a list of policy that contradicts liberty of the individual in America. By page thirteen the book's theme is well stated. I like books like this. The reader is compelled to see it's depth, whether he agrees or not. Says Gingrich; ‘Our exceptionalism is being eroded by those who acquiesce to policy that undermines it.’
The first part of the book draws on a historic review of five principles that constitute American liberty. As the casual reader relives the story of a few of our founding fathers he would likely be saying to himself ' these virtues that brought us American liberty are
being eroded and are now under attack by an over reaching president, Obama and his party of democrats. Gingrich closes part one by stating the obvious and then prescribes a way back. He intrigues the reader to read parts II and III to explore how the five habits listed below of liberty evolved, how they helped to make America exceptional, how they are dangerously undermined, and how we can revitalize and restore American Exceptionalism. He first takes a moment to quote a few notable people to stress the importance of American Exceptionalism.
Ben Franklin: The expression of that principle [liberty to all], in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy and fortunate. Without this ... We [still] could have declared independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.
Abe Lincoln: No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers were deists. They arrived in this new America from Christian Europe. They brought their religion with them and purposely held on to its virtues that provided a moral compass and a basis for a new constitution, and the foundation of American law. In our Constitution Gingrich speaks to the higher authority that American man heeds to with no intermediary, be it a religious authority or a government authority. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [not a life span to 150] This assertion makes some key assumptions about the relationship between man and God.
1. It assumes that God created man.
2. It assumes that God is Sovereign over the universe.
3. It assumes that man must obey an order of justice that God has instituted.
I note first that Gingrich assumes that God is a metaphor for nature. It seems evident however, throughout history that it is the nature of man to violate nature beginning with his violation of another man borne in his belief in scarcity. (Hobbs). Hence man must transcend his nature, I am not sure Gingrich, has given much thought to that. Second I find little coincidence that Gingrich quotes a Founding Father on liberty and then Abe Lincoln who ushered in liberty to all men…in America.
In quoting Franklin “My dear lady we have given you a republic - if you can keep it." Gingrich writes; ‘In a single sentence, Dr [Ben] Franklin summed up the extraordinary drama that would play out for all American history between two vital forces that sustain American Exceptionalism: freedom and responsibility.’
Gingrich writes there are five habits of liberty that come under the heading of Personal Responsibility – Virtue found in Religion, Morality
A. Faith and family
B. Work
C. Civil society
D. Rule of law
E. Safety and peace
Emphasis on these habits are vital to cultivating an engaged, informed citizenry which is needed to sustain a free republic... These habits set America apart from its European counterparts, where monarchs were intent on cultivating passive, obedient subjects unlikely to challenge their rulers claim to power.
I ask myself; where does one observe the erosion of these five habits? In a conversation with a friend of mine, a staunch Democrat and loud evangelist of atheism (a real irony), he said of conserving energy; Look at my toys. I have an Escalade, four other cars, two jet skis. All consume gas. We need to pass some laws or otherwise I wouldn't change my habits." I then think of Al Gore a democrat nominee for president of these United States, who writes a book on global warming and advocates the need for stringent federal regulation while at the same time has one of the largest carbon footprint of any US Senator in history. My friend voted for Gore. Neither acquiesces to personal responsibility. Both advocate though, laws for others to follow, of which only then will they conform ... Or will they?
It is no coincidence that Gingrich lists faith and family on top. He writes; ‘an America that openly rejects faith and the faithful will undermine the surest supports of human dignity in American life. That anti-religious America would soon cultivate a utilitarian culture, described in the above paragraph that elevates the powerful and crushes the weak. But an America that continues to welcome faith and the faithful as integral to American public life will transmit to the poorest and most forgotten segments if society the hope that they too have the right to the American Dream.
I am sure Gingrich is not espousing the fanatical right, but rather the faith found in our founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson who picked out the parts of the Bible that work for him. Note that I used work in the present tense as his work transcended his body and far out lived its expiration. There is no coincidence that Jefferson’s Bible is limited to Christ’s message. Our Founding Father’s held out an expectation that emphasis on man’s moral compass would enable management of a civil society.
I know these people who advocate the adoption of rules, imposed by a supposed 'neutral' government that conform people to society. Gingrich writes ‘It is a utilitarian method that ignores man’s moral footing. In their mind the rules they envision are done so only by those with some innate ability to see right from wrong. Those assumed abilities in this context are what we know as morals. The Church, in theory but not always in practice, makes no assumption that morals are born in the human psyche. The church does not take morals for granted; rather it uses the message of Christ, as did Jefferson, as a moral compass. Contrarily these people claim the utilitarian higher ground, write the laws and then create institutions to correct those who have lost there cardinal headings. In my opinion if the ‘church’ or like kind were allowed to flourish those people of utilitarian methods would find their goal obtainable at a much lower cost to the government than what they have put in place of the Church.’ I can’t help but notice in writing this paragraph that the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, commonly referred to by the 19th century as the Sick Old Man adopted a similar posture. It prompts a question in 2011’s world drama: where did Christ’s message get it right and Mohammad’s message gets it wrong? I know Christ’s message to be about transcendence through love {unconditional love meaning acceptance of things as they are] to one God, nature.
Alex de Tocqueville observed, “In the United States that associations are established to promote the public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion"...The Founders' insistence on limited government and created the space for the flourishing of civic life. In turn, to this day civic groups check and balance government power by fulfilling roles that government is tempted to assume, and by cultivating habits of personal responsibility that make individuals more capable of challenging government encroachments in their affairs. Tocqueville presciently predicted that government would eventually usurp many of the duties that private associations performed so effectively. Look at the American Red Cross as well as many other institutions that are the avant-garde of disaster relief. I ask does FEMA encroach on this society. Or should a limited version of FEMA merely complement all the non-profits that constitute the virtues of American man. Gingrich writes of a society that assumed the role of FEMA and note that post Katrina FEMA is now eroding away at the moral fabric conducive to society of Americans, I’ll also note as a case study that Bill Clinton, a self proclaimed public servant, has done more in the NPO sector in terms of humanitarian aid after his presidency than he ever hoped to do as president of the United States. And finally I remember hearing Gingrich say in 2005 that he would not pursue the office of President of the United States because government is too constraining to get anything done. So what is he really doing in 2011 as a presidential candidate? He is either running for President or laying the blanks for the Republican Party. Given his effort to date it is the latter.
Turning to our struggle with Islamic Terrorists, one would think Gingrich has drifted away from the theme of his book, and has garnered a listening ear with this book in his quest for his presidency of the United States. What follows are excerpts to catch the general gist of his message. He writes: ‘The courage to be free is sustained by the moral capacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be called by name [Obama doctrine], we will not be able to deter - or even recognize - threats to our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our traditional values, then we won't be able to mobilize the fighting spirit necessary to defend America. Throughout most of American history, our American leaders have not been hobbled by the kind of moral ambiguity that characterizes our present administration. [Obama]. Looking at the poor results of [President] Carter's foreign policy, we see that the president failed to understand the natural consequences of scaling back American power- it creates a vacuum that is typically filled by the most aggressive actors.’
My reaction to the previous paragraph goes as follows. You can read in history as early as the Peloponnesian Wars, that a society fears another society that is more powerful, not just in terms of military strength buying terms of economic prowess. The inferior will lash out at the superior as Iran does to the United States as an act of hybris, a term that has evolved to hubris. They impose an affront to your superior to show you are not the lesser society. With this as the nature of mankind as documented by philosophers and historians a U.S. President is derelict in his duties when adopting doctrine such as Carter or Obama. Kowtowing to those who aim to harm us is an imposition on our American spirit of liberty, let alone sending an invitation for attack. Kowtowing to our adversaries makes us slaves to an ideal that is foreign to our sovereignty as a nation. We lose that exceptionalism, exception to the rest of the world. We become like Europe whose history is fraught with strife and international conflict and intrigue. With this reaction I find Gringrich’s inclusion of the subject to be fitting with the theme of his book. Otherwise he is taking advantage of a captive audience.
After a foray into our economic situation of which I am in no adequate position to judge whether he has a good solution or not, Gingrich suggests what you the average citizen can do to incrementally contribute to that which makes America and exceptional nation. Below is a simple list.
Ten Steps to Restoring American Exceptionalism
1. Americans should learn about the issues and analyze how they relate to the principles and history of American Exceptionalism.
2. Once you feel comfortable in your knowledge start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.
3. Question government and argue for the right policies.
4. Educate your [any child, defined as an enlightened(able) of any age person] Talk to them about our founding principles.
5. Insist on schools bringing the principles of our founders back to the classroom.
6. Defeat and replace bad judges. Replace activist judges who feel their elite status prevails over the will of the people or the principles of our founders and their Constitution
7. Reestablish work ethic; do so mostly with your children. Teach them to work hard toward their dream. This is still the one country called the land of opportunity.
8. Celebrate American holidays. Don't just take the day off to buy some furniture, remember the reason for the holiday and talk about it with others.
9. Volunteer. Alex de Tocqueville observed this in early America. Our society is [was] more capable than our government. Regain our societal footing.
10. Run for office. Be a prime mover in reducing it imposition on the principles of our founders and restore the values that go along with liberty.
Oddly enough the list is ten. Why does the individual need to pay attention to these ‘steps’? In short, the central failing of big-government welfare state is that it's designers and current champions [Obama] do not think of people as individuals with inherent dignity who are capable of both self- government and compassion for their fellow man; they think of citizens as groups of people to be organized, placated, and for some radicals on the Left, to molded into "New Americans." That radical goal is too ominously close to 1932’s New Germans. Each American’s adherence to any or all of the above steps is an incremental ‘fire fence’ to the same fate of 1932 Germany, and today’s European social problems. We started out an exception to that rule…it is that exception that allows us liberties still not achieved anywhere else. I have traveled to many different countries. There has yet to be a time where when I clear US customs on my return trip I breathe a deep sigh and say ahhh, no place like home.
Contract with the Earth
Contract with the Earth
By Newt Gingrich
This was a refreshing and insightful book from a political figure with a bipartisan message for us all to appreciate. I got on to this book when listening to an interview of Gingrich on NPR. I am curious if it were not for the timing in fall of 2007, with rise to a high visibility political season, would the interview had taken place. In that interview Gingrich was asked if he is running for President. He said he was not, for the same reason Al Gore is not running. He feels he can accomplish more for the world with regard to the environment as a citizen than he could as President, being encumbered with politics.
What is Gingrich’s message? First is unity in the cause. Not just across national party lines but across international lines as well. Second is recognition that we do not have all the facts, in terms of the full balance of the ecosystems of our planet earth. Third is the facts should not be proprietary but rather universally shared. Fourth, is government at all levels and business need to come together with effective participation and policy, in a cooperative posture. Fifth is education of our youth and remedial education of our elders on the individual contributions through consumerism, philanthropy, voting, and life style changes that can lead to a cleaner environment. All this says a collective conscience with one unified goal is essential. The key yet silent word through out the book is balance.
I was somewhat intrigued at a couple byproducts brought about with a collective conscience on the environment. First was recognition that democratic societies, where the free will of the people is prevalent, are more apt to participate as each individual can identify with their earth experience. Second is that our national security hangs in the balance of our recognition of the fossil fuel problem. Would focus on the environment reduce our focus on a major cause of our threat to our national security provided largely by volatile, non-democratic countries; or would it increase it? In my mind it depends on how you apply your focus. Reduce demand in fossil fuel by improving our technology and then sharing it refocuses everyone on being a good neighbor.
I find is interesting that while the still standing in Feb. 08 and probable presidential candidates they all have agreeable environmental platforms, I find Obama’s record and platform a bit more impressive. His voting record is superior to the other two and his platform calls for stronger international leadership where I have not heard the others reach beyond our boundaries. Interesting, it seems a popular cry today from our “Bush bashing talking heads” is that we should dampen our critique of other nations on their values and policy as though we are an arrogant nation. This would be to ignore specifically speaking to their environmental record as the reason for not endorsing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile Gingrich is extolling the export of our technology commercially, and a call for international policy. There is a reason for my intrigue where leadership requires a genuine personal appreciation of a cause that translates to courage to advocate policy and practice towards that cause.
I did a search on the Internet and most easily found Obama willing to step up to the plate with right message. As a traditional Republican, I make the first move in reaching across lines with a call for good voting conscience as opposed to the “you go girl” mentality in choosing your candidate. We need to be for something, not against something. Its time we look for more than someone who is a divisive “I am not George W. Bush” as we hear from Clinton, but someone who actually has substance with leadership qualities as in Obama or McCain. On the environment we need unity and we need leadership, and if we saw a Presidential run off between McCain and Obama, for once either side would be voting for someone, whereby on the environment issues Obama stands tallest.
I am including notes in my review once again for those who do not make the time to read books. Shame on you who defer your information funnel solely to talking heads with agendas. It is my hope that the snippets will inspire you to read the book and get beyond the headlines or the five-minute take on TV or radio. If you are an Internet surfer, the back of the book provides a list of sites to surf. The more you know the issues and more specifically THE FACTS in depth the better you will appreciate what you as an individual can play as your part in this symphony we call Earth.
End Notes
p. 40 We don’t have a perfect understanding of Earth’s systems and processes; it may be unachievable in the face of such complexity. However, we continue to develop imperfect but useful mathematical models, and we have been able to isolate physical variables in the laboratory. We should celebrate our capacity to learn quickly about such things; and we need to continue funding the search for this vital information. We need to commit to the International Environmental Year project similar to the International Geophysical Year in the late 1950’s
p. 74 Conservation International has identified thirty-four hotspots in its most recent analysis. The degree of lost habitat can be expressed by comparing the 15.7 percent of original habitat with the remaining 2.3 percent of Earths surface now occupied by 34 hotspots, a precipitous loss of 86 percent. Amount them they contain 150,000 plant species as endemics, 50 percent of the worlds total…Hotspots are profoundly rich locales for the world’s wildlife, and the amount of biodiversity in hotspot is extremely high, so these remarkable hotspots represents an urgent priority for conservation. By protecting wildlife, especially undiscovered species, we also protect our opportunity to discover valuable new organic material.
p. 94 Non governmental organizations are driving those conservations because of the NGO’s inherent flexibility and speed…and their willingness to cooperate rather than criticize.
p. 119 Fred Kavli who is funding basic research for fairly open-ended projects in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and astronomy. He has launched fourteen research centers based at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech.
P 122 One model for the new philanthropy is the Clinton Global Initiative that aims to accelerate active philanthropy, especially when it is confronted with global emergencies….
P132 with regard to the decrease in air pollution in Loa Angeles, This is a significant decline, and new technology can take most of the credit for this change. For example, it is estimated that it would take twenty of today’s new cars to generate equivalent air pollution by just one mid 1960’2 car. This goal was accomplished through recognition and regulation. Gingrich adds (paraphrased)Los Angeles is seeking greater federal policies on emissions of locomotives, cargo ships, and airplanes that come in to the Los Angeles basin from outside jurisdictions
P 140 Our national security and our nation’s economy depends on supply and demand shifts that are orderly, predictable, and carefully managed. Chaos is the enemy of national security.
By reducing expectations, it is easier to enable fossil fuel to retain its grip on the American consumer, an it becomes more difficult for competitive industry to gain a foothold, even if the industry is spawned by Big Oil…..our nation will need tax incentives to continue research on alternative fuels…a continued heavy handed policy will only limit the progress in research.
P156 With regard to leadership in environmentalism….In his best selling book, Good to Great, Jim Collins observed that effective leaders channel their self interest into the larger goal of building a great company. Their ambition is mostly for the good of the institution rather than themselves…Clearly , a sustainable environmental culture will require staying power. Today’s leaders must be tenacious advocates for the natural world, driven by results and guided by evidence. Where will we find such leaders? According to Collins…look for a well run company.
P157 A recent study published in the Journal of Peace Research demonstrated that democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitments the non democratic nations.
P 159 In the book Green to Gold the authors identified many ways leading edge companies go beyond mere compliance to adapt environmental perspectives into all aspects of their company operations. These companies mindful of the increasing transparency provided by Internet access to the business world offer proactive pathways to an environmental business culture. Examples are provided
P 167 Because adventure capitalists tend to fund ideas that are nearly ready for the marketplace, the type of arduous research that produces real breakthroughs can only be funded by astute governments. America needs to be that kind of government, but our commitments have wavered in recent years so government incentives for energy research will be issues in future political campaigns.
P168 Mobilizing other countries to join us will not be as easy as it may appear. Many nations that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are lagging behind on their commitments. Canada’s commissioner Johanne Gelinas, said in 2006 that her country has “done too little and acted too slowly” in addressing climate change.
P177 On wild-life preserves, Crane-Medows ( a government preserve) does not live in a vacuum. It owes much of its success to Omaha-born entrepreneur Peter Kiewit, a generous philanthropist who died in 1979, but who left much of his fortune to his foundation….(paraphrased) contributing to the improvement of preserves.
P 188 A return to the subdued style and scholarly depth of the storied Lincoln-Douglas nineteenth-century political debates is a reform badly needed in our time. Media corporations should be working to achieve an unbiased, in-depth presentation of the original ideas, platforms, and philosophies of all political candidates so the American people can select their leaders based on trusted, reliable information sources.
P 189 We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data derived from a diversity of measurement techniques….However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn’t be surprising, given the role human beings have played in other environmental event…however, the debate about the origins and sources of climate change should not be left to scientists alone
P190 In three recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences, climate scientists decry the lack od adequate systems for collecting, sharing, and modeling climate data. We must heed these calls and provide the scientific community with the resources to improve future climate projections. A key first step is the development of a sophisticated data-gathering system with appropriate investment in gathering and analyzing data….The data should be available to everyone. Scientific debate and descent should be encouraged in pursuit of a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our environmental systems
By Newt Gingrich
This was a refreshing and insightful book from a political figure with a bipartisan message for us all to appreciate. I got on to this book when listening to an interview of Gingrich on NPR. I am curious if it were not for the timing in fall of 2007, with rise to a high visibility political season, would the interview had taken place. In that interview Gingrich was asked if he is running for President. He said he was not, for the same reason Al Gore is not running. He feels he can accomplish more for the world with regard to the environment as a citizen than he could as President, being encumbered with politics.
What is Gingrich’s message? First is unity in the cause. Not just across national party lines but across international lines as well. Second is recognition that we do not have all the facts, in terms of the full balance of the ecosystems of our planet earth. Third is the facts should not be proprietary but rather universally shared. Fourth, is government at all levels and business need to come together with effective participation and policy, in a cooperative posture. Fifth is education of our youth and remedial education of our elders on the individual contributions through consumerism, philanthropy, voting, and life style changes that can lead to a cleaner environment. All this says a collective conscience with one unified goal is essential. The key yet silent word through out the book is balance.
I was somewhat intrigued at a couple byproducts brought about with a collective conscience on the environment. First was recognition that democratic societies, where the free will of the people is prevalent, are more apt to participate as each individual can identify with their earth experience. Second is that our national security hangs in the balance of our recognition of the fossil fuel problem. Would focus on the environment reduce our focus on a major cause of our threat to our national security provided largely by volatile, non-democratic countries; or would it increase it? In my mind it depends on how you apply your focus. Reduce demand in fossil fuel by improving our technology and then sharing it refocuses everyone on being a good neighbor.
I find is interesting that while the still standing in Feb. 08 and probable presidential candidates they all have agreeable environmental platforms, I find Obama’s record and platform a bit more impressive. His voting record is superior to the other two and his platform calls for stronger international leadership where I have not heard the others reach beyond our boundaries. Interesting, it seems a popular cry today from our “Bush bashing talking heads” is that we should dampen our critique of other nations on their values and policy as though we are an arrogant nation. This would be to ignore specifically speaking to their environmental record as the reason for not endorsing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile Gingrich is extolling the export of our technology commercially, and a call for international policy. There is a reason for my intrigue where leadership requires a genuine personal appreciation of a cause that translates to courage to advocate policy and practice towards that cause.
I did a search on the Internet and most easily found Obama willing to step up to the plate with right message. As a traditional Republican, I make the first move in reaching across lines with a call for good voting conscience as opposed to the “you go girl” mentality in choosing your candidate. We need to be for something, not against something. Its time we look for more than someone who is a divisive “I am not George W. Bush” as we hear from Clinton, but someone who actually has substance with leadership qualities as in Obama or McCain. On the environment we need unity and we need leadership, and if we saw a Presidential run off between McCain and Obama, for once either side would be voting for someone, whereby on the environment issues Obama stands tallest.
I am including notes in my review once again for those who do not make the time to read books. Shame on you who defer your information funnel solely to talking heads with agendas. It is my hope that the snippets will inspire you to read the book and get beyond the headlines or the five-minute take on TV or radio. If you are an Internet surfer, the back of the book provides a list of sites to surf. The more you know the issues and more specifically THE FACTS in depth the better you will appreciate what you as an individual can play as your part in this symphony we call Earth.
End Notes
p. 40 We don’t have a perfect understanding of Earth’s systems and processes; it may be unachievable in the face of such complexity. However, we continue to develop imperfect but useful mathematical models, and we have been able to isolate physical variables in the laboratory. We should celebrate our capacity to learn quickly about such things; and we need to continue funding the search for this vital information. We need to commit to the International Environmental Year project similar to the International Geophysical Year in the late 1950’s
p. 74 Conservation International has identified thirty-four hotspots in its most recent analysis. The degree of lost habitat can be expressed by comparing the 15.7 percent of original habitat with the remaining 2.3 percent of Earths surface now occupied by 34 hotspots, a precipitous loss of 86 percent. Amount them they contain 150,000 plant species as endemics, 50 percent of the worlds total…Hotspots are profoundly rich locales for the world’s wildlife, and the amount of biodiversity in hotspot is extremely high, so these remarkable hotspots represents an urgent priority for conservation. By protecting wildlife, especially undiscovered species, we also protect our opportunity to discover valuable new organic material.
p. 94 Non governmental organizations are driving those conservations because of the NGO’s inherent flexibility and speed…and their willingness to cooperate rather than criticize.
p. 119 Fred Kavli who is funding basic research for fairly open-ended projects in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and astronomy. He has launched fourteen research centers based at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech.
P 122 One model for the new philanthropy is the Clinton Global Initiative that aims to accelerate active philanthropy, especially when it is confronted with global emergencies….
P132 with regard to the decrease in air pollution in Loa Angeles, This is a significant decline, and new technology can take most of the credit for this change. For example, it is estimated that it would take twenty of today’s new cars to generate equivalent air pollution by just one mid 1960’2 car. This goal was accomplished through recognition and regulation. Gingrich adds (paraphrased)Los Angeles is seeking greater federal policies on emissions of locomotives, cargo ships, and airplanes that come in to the Los Angeles basin from outside jurisdictions
P 140 Our national security and our nation’s economy depends on supply and demand shifts that are orderly, predictable, and carefully managed. Chaos is the enemy of national security.
By reducing expectations, it is easier to enable fossil fuel to retain its grip on the American consumer, an it becomes more difficult for competitive industry to gain a foothold, even if the industry is spawned by Big Oil…..our nation will need tax incentives to continue research on alternative fuels…a continued heavy handed policy will only limit the progress in research.
P156 With regard to leadership in environmentalism….In his best selling book, Good to Great, Jim Collins observed that effective leaders channel their self interest into the larger goal of building a great company. Their ambition is mostly for the good of the institution rather than themselves…Clearly , a sustainable environmental culture will require staying power. Today’s leaders must be tenacious advocates for the natural world, driven by results and guided by evidence. Where will we find such leaders? According to Collins…look for a well run company.
P157 A recent study published in the Journal of Peace Research demonstrated that democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitments the non democratic nations.
P 159 In the book Green to Gold the authors identified many ways leading edge companies go beyond mere compliance to adapt environmental perspectives into all aspects of their company operations. These companies mindful of the increasing transparency provided by Internet access to the business world offer proactive pathways to an environmental business culture. Examples are provided
P 167 Because adventure capitalists tend to fund ideas that are nearly ready for the marketplace, the type of arduous research that produces real breakthroughs can only be funded by astute governments. America needs to be that kind of government, but our commitments have wavered in recent years so government incentives for energy research will be issues in future political campaigns.
P168 Mobilizing other countries to join us will not be as easy as it may appear. Many nations that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are lagging behind on their commitments. Canada’s commissioner Johanne Gelinas, said in 2006 that her country has “done too little and acted too slowly” in addressing climate change.
P177 On wild-life preserves, Crane-Medows ( a government preserve) does not live in a vacuum. It owes much of its success to Omaha-born entrepreneur Peter Kiewit, a generous philanthropist who died in 1979, but who left much of his fortune to his foundation….(paraphrased) contributing to the improvement of preserves.
P 188 A return to the subdued style and scholarly depth of the storied Lincoln-Douglas nineteenth-century political debates is a reform badly needed in our time. Media corporations should be working to achieve an unbiased, in-depth presentation of the original ideas, platforms, and philosophies of all political candidates so the American people can select their leaders based on trusted, reliable information sources.
P 189 We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data derived from a diversity of measurement techniques….However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn’t be surprising, given the role human beings have played in other environmental event…however, the debate about the origins and sources of climate change should not be left to scientists alone
P190 In three recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences, climate scientists decry the lack od adequate systems for collecting, sharing, and modeling climate data. We must heed these calls and provide the scientific community with the resources to improve future climate projections. A key first step is the development of a sophisticated data-gathering system with appropriate investment in gathering and analyzing data….The data should be available to everyone. Scientific debate and descent should be encouraged in pursuit of a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our environmental systems
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)