Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Happy Birthday, Land That I Love!


I am posting a few days early for Independence Day 2017 so that readers of this blog will have enough time to enjoy the soaring music of Symphony No. 9 In E Minor (aka "From The New World") by Antonín Dvořák (1841 –1904) and the accompanying images:



For detailed information about the composer and the above piece, please see THIS POSTING at Musical Musings. Those of you familiar with the song "Goin' Home" you may be surprised to learn the following:
[Dvořák] composed the Symphony No. 9 in 1893, and while American music inspired him, he did not use any American melodies in the work. He wrote in the American style of pentatonic scale use and did it so well that for a long time many put the cart before the horse, especially in regards to the melody from the 2nd movement. A song named "Goin' Home" takes its melody from the symphony, not the other way around. The words were not set to the melody until many years after the symphony had been written.
A detailed discussion of the origins of "Goin' Home," is found HERE.


HAPPY BIRTHDAY, USA!



AND HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY 2017 TO ALL WHO STOP BY ALWAYS ON WATCH!


Never forget why we celebrate this day:


The Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. John Adams put forth a resolution earlier in the year which made a formal declaration inevitable. A committee was assembled to draft the formal declaration, to be ready when congress voted on independence. Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document, which congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The Independence Day of the United States of America is celebrated on July 4, the day Congress approved the wording of the Declaration.

Quotes from signers:

"Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America."
Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
John Adams

"There, I guess King George will be able to read that."
John Hancock

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
John Adam

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth all the means. This is our day of deliverance."
John Adams

"Equal and exact justice to all men...freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected,these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us."
Thomas Jefferson

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin

186 comments:

  1. Wishing you and Mr. AOW a happy Independence day holiday. This is a wonderful selection for a post... will stop round again for a listen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bunkerville,
      Thank you.

      I love Dvořák's New World Symphony. I first heard it as a child and fell in love with it right away.

      Delete
    2. I thought I knew a lot about the Dvorak, AOW, but your posting made me look it up. I was both amused and amazed to find that the Folk Song "GOIN' HOME"was derived Dvorak's symphony and NOT the ohther way 'round as is usually the case in such matters.

      Delete
  2. If we only had a Thomas Jefferson of our era......looking at our current state, what did they even fight for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      looking at our current state, what did they even fight for?

      I'm trying not to think about that during the Independence Day Weekend.

      Delete
    2. What we are fighting for.
      It doesn't stay won.

      Delete
    3. Ed,
      It doesn't stay won.

      True.

      As our nation approached the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in a letter dated June 24, 1826: "[L]et the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

      Jefferson was in ill health at the time that he penned the letter, became bedridden a few days later, and died on July 4, 1826. John Adams died that same day, BTW.

      We can begin doing what Jefferson suggested in his final written communique by reviewing the document itself, which so beautifully states the ideals of liberty -- especially the basis of our rights.

      It takes a mere 10 minutes to read the document aloud. See the second video I included in the above blog post.

      Delete
    4. CI,
      Sadly, I'm not seeing much of a fight.

      The reason, IMO: Americans are no longer interested in ideas, but rather in trivial matters and in cult-like followings.

      Delete
    5. I agree.....it's far easier to rail against boogeymen like the 'media' or corporations.....than it is to support tough decisions to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

      Delete
    6. The "Media" is not a boogeyman.
      It exists and it is counter to the American Ideal.
      The Media fights to enlarge the scope and size.

      Delete
    7. Blaming the media is also a crutch for poor governance and statesmanship. Erroneous media reporting can be countered with facts and intellect. Doing the opposite is likewise counter to the American ideal and disrespectful to the American Citizen.

      Delete
    8. Ed,
      I must agree with you about the media. The media have become an arm of the Democratic Party (more properly termed the Party of Progressivim).

      I remember a time that a liberal (such as my father-in-law, born circa 1934) adamantly would not call himself "A Progressive" -- because a Progressive is "red" (a Communist).

      So stated my father-in-law about six years ago when I tried to pin him down about his political ideology: "Don't call me a Progressive. A Progressive is a Red, and I'm not one of those!"

      Now, of course, many Dems state outright that they are Progressives. They're out in the open -- and just a few years ago would not dared to have been out in the open. I haven't recently spoken with my father-in-law about what he now considers his political ideology. No point in stirring up family trouble!

      Delete
    9. "Erroneous media reporting can be countered with facts and intellect. "
      And how do those facts get distributed without "media".
      MSM is like chaff or evasive measures countering hits on the liberal/progressive agenda.

      Delete
    10. Ed,
      And how do those facts get distributed without "media".

      Ay! There's the rub!

      Delete
    11. And how do those facts get distributed without "media".

      This POTUS has at his command, the entire communications apparatus of the Federal government, and an army of spokespeople [who get my sympathy]. He also, as he or his sock puppets will tell you, has his ballyhooed Twitter. Yet what does he do with that medium? Tantrums.

      The 'blame the media' schtick was entertaining for awhile, but it's time for the GOP and it's elected leadership to sack up and be adults, taking the fight where it needs to go, instead of where the Left wants to steer it.

      Delete
    12. CI,
      Yet what does he do with that medium [Twitter]? Tantrums.

      Check his two Twitter feeds:

      One

      Two.

      Trump doesn't post only the tantrums you mentioned.

      Delete
    13. The Left's been "steering" since the 60's (Vietnam War protests). In the absence of a "Constitutionally viable reason" to "change" the media that didn't violate the 1st Amendment, why the 'f would they? Trump's tantrum don't violate the Constitution. Sounds like Trump's found a way to change the media, short of changing the Constitution or violating the 1st Amendment.

      Delete
    14. The "jouissance" behind the MSM IS the real issue. The federal government's "jouissance" is "force". Trump's using the ONLY Constitutionally compatible medium available to him. His Tweet's prove that he's a "true" patriot.

      Delete
    15. ps - The "entire" communications apparatus of the federal government resides in the White House briefing room... AND Trump's Twitter feed.

      Delete
    16. ...and Twitter is the only Constitutionally appropriate outlet for our current "governor's" "Jouissance".

      Delete
    17. The liberal elite media, for the very first time, is encountering the "real" of the "Other" in ALL it's obscenity... and I, for one, intend to "savor" it!

      The Lacanian proof of the Other's existence lies in the jouissance of the Other (in contrast to Christianity, for example, where Love provides this proof). In order to render this notion palpable, suffice it to imagine an intersubjective encounter: when do I effectively encounter the Other "beyond the wall of language," in the real of his or her being? Not when I am able to describe her, not even when I learn her values, dreams, etc., but, only when I encounter the Other in her moment of jouissance: when I discern in her a tiny detail - a compulsive gesture, an excessive facial expression, a tic - which signals the intensity of the real of jouissance. This encounter of the real is always traumatic, there is something at least minimally obscene about it. I cannot simply integrate it into my universe; there is always a gap separating me from it. This, then, is what "intersubjectivity" is actually about, not the Habermasian "ideal speech situation" of a multitude of academics smoking pipes at a round table and arguing about some point by means of undistorted communication: without the element of the real of jouissance, for here the Other ultimately remains a fiction, a purely symbolic subject of strategic reasoning, as exemplified in the "rational choice theory." For that reason, one is even tempted to replace the term "multiculturalism" with "multiracism:" multiculturalism suspends the traumatic kernel of the Other, reducing it to an asepticized, folklorist entity. What we are dealing with here is - in Lacanese - the distance between S and a, between the symbolic features and the unfathomable surplus, the "indivisible remainder" of the real; at a somewhat different level...

      Delete
    18. The White House Press Office is PURE Ego-Ideal (symbolic Law). Trump's Twitter feed is pure "SuperEgo" (jousissance). You need BOTH for a government to function short of a Stalinist dictatorship.

      The formula of the Party-State, as the defining feature of twentieth-century Communism, thus needs to be complicated: there is always a gap between Party and State, corresponding to the gap between the Ego-Ideal (symbolic Law) and the Superego, for the Party remains the half-hidden obscene shadow which redoubles the State structure. There is here no distance, its organization embodying a fundamental distrust of the State organs and mechanisms, as if they need to be continually kept in check. A true twentieth-century-style Communist never fully accepts the State: there always has to be a vigilant agency outside of State control, with the power to intervene in the State's business.
      - Slavoj Zizek, "Living in the End Times"

      Delete
    19. Trump doesn't post only the tantrums you mentioned.

      I didn't make that claim, but it doesn't change what wrote. The entire communications apparatus of the federal government......

      Delete
    20. Do we REALLY want to the media to convey the purposelessness of bureaucracy as epitomized by the White House briefing room?

      Delete
    21. Love YOU, Speedy! HAPPY FOURTH! and Keep Up the Good Work,

      Keep speaking Truth to Negativity. Truth may often be unpleasant, but it is NEVER "negative."

      Truth cleanses. Truth heals, Truth energizes. Truth strengthens. Trth inspires good deeds and great achievmenets. Truth is synonymous wth Love.

      Truth is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

      Truth is All-In-All. Everything opposed to Truth is an illusion –– a chimera –– a bete noir –– a Satanic deception –– a Bad Dream.

      Resist the Devil and he will flee from you. The Negative View is the DEVIL'S view.

      The Devil is the Great Deceiver. Don't fall for his wiles. Life ceases to be one long series of disappointments, heartaches and aggravations and becomes joyous, refreshing and continually astonishing in a thousand different ways once we embrace Truth wholeheartedly.

      May the power of the Holy Ghost be wth you –– and with us all –– now and forever!

      Delete
    22. As Speedy said, The "entire" communications apparatus of the federal government resides in the White House briefing room... AND Trump's Twitter feed.
      You think Voice of America counts?

      Delete
    23. Every Cabinet Secretary and office that falls under the Executive Branch has a communications office. Now, noting that he often doesn't even stay on the same message as his own spokespeople, this may not help his narrative.

      I don't have an issue with POTUS having a Twitter account, I have an issue with the way Trump mocks his own office and the American people, by the way he uses it. But fine, let him continue. He's setting the bar so low, that the next Democrat POTUS need not worry.

      Delete
    24. It would be great to hear him speak to the American people on how he plans to defeat ISIS, explain the troop increase in Afghanistan, his vision for countering Russian aggression, or any number of substantive policy proposals. Instead we get some drivel, endless pissing and moaning about the media, some pedestrian fluff, and a healthy does of ego. Is that his message?

      This Independence Day should remind all Patriots, that we can do better, and well we should...before it's too late.

      Delete
    25. You think Voice of America counts?

      VOA only used to broadcast overseas (Before 2012). It's the voice of the CIA. You really want Americans to get their info from VOA?

      Delete
    26. I'd rather get my news from PRAVDA.

      Delete
    27. The "truth" in the Obama Presidency was in Obama's "SuperEgo". THAT NEVER got reported on. His entire presidency was a media LIE and failure.

      We need to see the "obscene" SuperEGo hiding behind the man. Without this knowledge, our perceived version of "reality" is "incomplete".

      Delete
    28. ];^D>

      HAPPY FOURTH, SPEEDY! And to all those morose, fretful, sour-pusses who've, apparently, lost the ability to see VIRTUE in others, and the GOOD side of things as well.

      Be of Good Cheer
      Independence Day is here!
      So ring bells, sing songs
      Blow Horns, sound gongs.
      Freedom will never die
      If we keep our goals raised high.


      ~ Thanks Ira! (Gershwin that is ;-)

      Delete
  3. Thanks AOW. Have a wonderful holiday with Mr AOW !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kid,
      We're trying to figure out if there's a place to go to observe fireworks. Many sites offering fireworks are not handicapped-friendly.

      Delete
    2. I highly recommend watching foreworks on TV.

      Delete
  4. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is NOT a government that grants us rights, but rather our rights come to us by natural law (our Creator).

    The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle us to our rights, and it is the job of government to make sure that our rights are not violated.

    And when a government defies the consent of the governed and oversteps the bounds of what a government is supposed to be doing?

    ...[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

    Thus far, we have been able to alter our government, instead of burning it all down and starting over.

    I sometimes wonder if our Founders expected that we'd never have to burn it all down and start over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thus far, we have been able to alter our government, instead of burning it all down and starting over.

      But what we've done, is bend our government and Constitution to the whims and wills of two political parties, instead of the Citizen and the principles of a free Republic. Something I feel safe in saying, our Founders would have never desired.

      Delete
    2. That "Living Document" has suffered rape.

      Delete
    3. The "Creator" is the Lacanian "Big Other" for non-believers.

      "The Word" (w/o the Spirit/Holy Ghost) "lacks". The Constitution (w/o the Founding Fathers) "lacks".

      Delete
    4. How a government bureaucracy really functions w/ and w/o the "executives" oversight...

      Delete
    5. So, I get home from the swimming pool and read this:

      CNN Whines at Twitter to Get Trump Kicked Off.

      Brief excerpt:

      ,,,Tweets take three seconds to write. So Trump writes three poorly-considered tweets -- and being "poorly-considered' means he spent less time on them than the normal 3-second tweet -- and then the media says "That's why we have to spend 24 hours per day of our own time covering this"?

      Does that make any sense?

      They're talking about it because they want to talk about it -- because they're #TheResistance, and they are trying to get Trump kicked out of office...

      Delete
    6. The media is more invested in virtue signalling and maintaining "political correctness" than attempting to decipher Trump's visceral/emotional "1st reactions" to events. A shame, really. The Tweet's expose "the man" behind the government and what he actually believes in and "feels" is important. Things that they, as elites, DON'T.

      Delete
    7. Speedy G,
      The Tweet's expose "the man" behind the government and what he actually believes in and "feels" is important. Things that they, as elites, DON'T.

      Brilliant statement!

      It's a head-on collision.

      PS: If I hear one more damn word about "Trump's war on the media," I'm going to have a meltdown. The msm drone on and on about that "war." Pfffft.

      Delete
    8. It's their "narrative". To delve into "why" he Tweet's what he Tweet's would mean fairly analyzing addressing the underlying issues they find so "degrading" and "inappropriate".

      Meanwhile, the "people" understand Trump's sentiments and "why" he feels as he does. They've been just as "ignored" by the media elites, too.

      Delete
    9. ps - It's their "avoidance" narrative.

      Delete
    10. It's easier to explain the Tweet's as the "irrational" rumbling of a failed executive than to attempt to "rationalize" them.

      Delete
    11. Speedy G,
      I'm filling up Twitter with your brilliant aphorisms. :^)

      Delete
  5. ____________ FIREWORKS ____________

    The fountains in the sky in brilliance burst
    Over throngs who who thrill as as patterns spread
    In radiant arms of of glowing hues disbursed
    Natant in the blackness overhead.

    Deafening as any cannonade
    Explosions follow soon the hiss and squeal ––
    Preliminaries to the star brigade
    Erupting floridly, yet quite unreal.

    Naumachia was caught compared to this
    Delirium. Decorim's cast aside,
    Enraptured like Narcissus we know bliss
    Non sequitur to what's seen nationwide.

    Could joy we take in Heaven's fireworks
    Earthbound hold us, while the Devil smirks?



    ~ FreeThinke - The Sandpiper - Summer 1996

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has been posted at my blog today. I've also posted the CHORAL versiin of Techaikovsky's 1912 Overture, which is GREAT. Come listen.

      Delete
    2. Thank you all SO MUCH for your acknowledgmen of our attempts to communicate with you. Thank you too for your gracious show of appreciation for the efforts we make on behalf of this and other blogs. Thanks also for all the positive feedback, generous contribuations to my blog, and your hearty good wishes for my continued good heath and your hopes that I enjoy a Happy Independence Day.

      Thank you too –– especially –– for your sensitivity in the outpouring of loving concern for the pllght of our friend Jersey McJones who hovers now between life and death in an extraordinarily challenging battle against metastatic cancer.

      Your remarkable attitudes have been duly noted, and are MUCH appreciated, believe me.

      Delete
  6. PS: If I hear one more damn word about "Trump's war on the media," I'm going to have a meltdown. The msm drone on and on about that "war." Pfffft.

    Perhaps Trump could stop bringing it up, like during events to honour Veterans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was the media there covering it?

      Delete
    2. Cuz he Tweeted this|. "We will always take care of our GREAT VETERANS. You have shed your blood, poured your love, and bared your soul, in defense of our country."

      Delete
    3. Yes the media was present, which is how we know what he said. I'm sure that some intellectual midget will twist that into "fake news".

      So you think that throwing another anti-media tantrum at an event honoring Veterans was appropriate or respectful? Wow.....

      Delete
    4. So... he can't use presidential events to complain about the media, he can't use press conferences to complain about the media, and he can't use Twitter to complain about the media. So there's no problem with the media coverage, right?

      Delete
    5. You're coming up with a lot of strawmen that nobody has argued. This Veteran doesn't find it respectful in the least to use the military as a cheap backdrop for his tantrums....which he then complains gets covered.

      Delete
    6. CI,
      This Veteran doesn't find it respectful in the least...

      I wonder how the veterans present felt about what Trump said. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard any such blow back. If there were such blow back, certain the msm would pick up on it, IMO.

      Delete
    7. Hard to say, but we certainly remember comments of Obama using the military as a political prop don't we......why not now?

      Delete
    8. This veteran doesn't have a problem with a President speaking his mind wherever and whenever he wants.

      Delete
    9. Good to know. Did you sing the same tune during the previous Adminsitration?

      It's not even a matter of speaking his mind; it's carrying a personal vendetta into a hallowed event, complaining of the very thing that he is guilty of.

      Delete
    10. Who knew that one day, American veterans would all start melting like delicate little snowflakes... ;)

      Delete
    11. You don't honor a "Celebrate Freedom" event by holding your tongue.

      Delete
    12. You ENJOY the HELL out if... with full jouissance!

      Delete
    13. Good to hear your opinion of Veterans events. Are you sure you served?

      You don't celebrate freedom by acting like, or fellating, a petulant narcissist; or demand accountability and respect based on political ideology. Or perhaps many you do....

      Delete
    14. Huh....Fox didn't mention his media tantrum. Who'da thunk?

      Delete
    15. Trump epitomizes the reasons we shall likely never be exceptional again. Bluster, ignorance, petulance, gluttony...tantrums and lies.

      Delete
    16. Joe,
      So, there was more to the event than Trump's tantrums!


      “America is a land rich with heroes,” said Trump at the event, which included wounded warriors who are patients at the Walter Reed Medical Center.

      During his speech, the president personally saluted World War II veteran Harry Miller for his lifelong service and wounded warrior Luis Avila. Miller enlisted in the reserves at 15, even though he was not old enough to serve. He fought in Europe and in The Battle of the Bulge. Avila, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was on a fifth deployment when he was wounded, losing his leg, during an intelligence reconnaissance mission.

      “We all bleed the same red blood,” said Trump, promising an adoring crowd that America would “win again.”

      [...]

      “Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence 241 years ago, America always affirmed that liberty comes from our creator. Our rights are given to us by God, and no earthly force can ever take those rights away. That is why my administration is transferring power out of Washington and returning that power back where it belongs to the people,” Trump said....

      Delete
    17. CI,
      Fox didn't mention his media tantrum.

      Expected -- as was other networks' dwelling on the "tantrum."

      I wonder how long the "tantrum" was in comparison with the rest of the speech. Any data on that?

      Delete
    18. Data? Please don't proffer a straw man that anybody has argued there wasn't more to Trumps speech than his tantrum. We should be above that.

      I ask again, why is it despicable to use the military as political props during one Administration....but lauded during another?

      Delete
    19. CI,
      For pity's sake! I was merely asking for a percentage so as to see the percentage. I was not setting up a straw man.

      why is it despicable to use the military as political props during one Administration....but lauded during another?

      I don't recall ever criticizing any of BHO's speeches to veterans. Are you setting up a straw man?

      In my view, it is the Commander in Chief's prerogative to determine the content of his speeches to our military.

      Delete
    20. Addendum so that you can understand my reaction...

      As a teacher, I absolutely hate it when students take something of mine out of context and present my statements as the whole of what I said during a class period. Many a time I've made a passing comment and had it blown up into something it never was.

      Delete
    21. I was referring to where you wrote: So, there was more to the event than Trump's tantrums! I should have clarified which comment I was referring to.

      Are you setting up a straw man?

      I'm not sure why this seems to be a common response. If I were referring specifically to you, I would call you by name. I'm referring to the Right, writ large. The Right, who again....writ large....wet themselves over any slight by the pervious Administration, real or invented.....yet is devolving into a gaggle of simpering sycophants with this Administration. The military being a "prop" [it was] and Obama's alleged "hate" toward the military [emotional projection], were common themes in the blogosphere.

      It is Trumps prerogative....as it is of any Patriot to call him out on his disrespect, and hypocrisy of his base.

      Delete
    22. The whole speech is here. The "media attack" went on for almost 30 seconds of a 1.h hour speech.

      Of course, what did the media report of the speech? The only part that the media reported on and CI knows about, of course!

      Delete
    23. I absolutely hate it when students take something of mine out of context...

      Agreed, and I should do a better job at clarifying my statements.

      Delete
    24. Well Joe, you refuted your point by your own link above. But I know, Fox isn't considered the "media", when it's convenient. I'm a Veterans, not some who uses media reaction as intellectual currency.

      Delete
    25. Of course, it wouldn't nearly so deliciously ironic, if POTUS weren't just as guilty of proffered "fake news" as the media he rails against. I suppose we shouldn't hold him to a higher standard....again, because it's politically convenient.

      Delete
    26. A veteran would have listened to the speech. You are precisely what you deny being, CI!

      Delete
    27. ...and if you want to read up on my service experiences, you can start here.

      Delete
    28. CI,
      If I were referring specifically to you, I would call you by name.

      Acknowledged.

      The reply format here gets confusing.

      It is Trumps prerogative....as it is of any Patriot to call him out on his disrespect, and hypocrisy of his base.

      Agreed on both counts -- although I'm not sure about the overall hypocrisy of his base being any different from any other partisan-based position.

      Whatever.

      I'm bowing out for a while. I need to do some reading of Mark Levin's Rediscovering Americanism.

      Delete
    29. Joe,
      The "media attack" went on for almost 30 seconds of a 1.h hour speech.

      Thanks for the information. That's what I was looking for.

      Delete
    30. A veteran would have listened to the speech.

      This Veteran did. And I was appalled that instead of taking one. damn. night. off......from his petulant and hypocritical tirade, he had to sully that forum. I'm hard pressed to believe that you would have supported a Democrat POTUS doing likewise.

      And Anchors Aweigh. You couldn't get me stuck on a boat. I did more sensible things, like jump out of aircraft.

      Delete
    31. ....although I'm not sure about the overall hypocrisy of his base being any different from any other partisan-based position.

      It's not, but aren't Conservatives supposed to be better than their opposition?

      Delete
    32. @AoW - The speech didn't fill the hour, but it was no Gettysburg Address either.

      @CI - You're right, I would have whined like a little snowflake.

      Delete
    33. ...Cuz the Left has turned "victimology" into America's HIGHEST moral virtue.

      Delete
    34. Yep. But I don't support emulating that faux-virtue.

      Delete
    35. Cuz "vets" are the absolute MASTERS of it.

      Delete
    36. The squeakly wheel gets the grease! The virtuous warrior gets the pauper's grave.

      Delete
    37. Plato, "Charmides"

      And the temperate are also good?

      Yes.

      And can that be good which does not make men good?

      Certainly not.

      And you would infer that temperance is not only noble, but also good?

      That is my opinion.

      Well, I said; but surely you would agree with Homer when he says, 'Modesty is not good for a needy man'?

      Yes, he said; I agree.

      Then I suppose that modesty is and is not good?

      Clearly.

      But temperance, whose presence makes men only good, and not bad, is always good?

      That appears to me to be as you say.

      And the inference is that temperance cannot be modesty—if temperance is a good, and if modesty is as much an evil as a good?

      Delete
    38. Veterans benefits are a kind of "social justice". The REMF who never leaves America gets the same (often life-time) health benefits as the warrior wounded in battle.

      We BOTH agree that the wounded warrior deserves lifetime benefits. The "social justice" of the REMF receiving them, however...

      Delete
    39. Then there's the military contractor in the Green Zone of Bagdad that gets whacked by an IED. What does the VA owe him?

      Delete
    40. Oh wait, I've got PTSD. I was exposed to Agent Orange.

      Contractors don't get PTSD? They aren't ever exposed to chemicals and nerve agents? One things for certain, they'll never be exposed to treatment by the doctors of the VA.

      Delete
    41. Nothing screams faux-virtue like the words, "I'm a veteran."

      Delete
    42. True virtue remains silent, yet the epitaph may read:

      "Αἰσχύλον Εὐφορίωνος Ἀθηναῖον τόδε κεύθει
      μνῆμα καταφθίμενον πυροφόροιο Γέλας·
      ἀλκὴν δ' εὐδόκιμον Μαραθώνιον ἄλσος ἂν εἴποι
      καὶ βαθυχαιτήεις Μῆδος ἐπιστάμενος"

      Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian,
      who perished in the wheat-bearing land of Gela;
      of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon can speak,
      and the long-haired Persian knows it well.

      Delete
    43. Wow...you have a lot of time on your hands. Carry on, it's entertaining in a sad sort of way.

      So military benefits aren't a mechanism of the voluntary contract between Citizen and State....but rather a "social justice"? Spoken like a true Leftist.

      Your respect for your own service seems to speak volumes....

      Delete
    44. CI,
      Joe, a Leftist? Not so!

      He does speak in somewhat obscure terms from time to time, however.

      Delete
    45. If he deigns to think [and label] me a snowflake....I'm perfectly within reason to presume that he's a Leftist based on the emotionally driven responses. Much like the comments below where FT is up to his usual activities.

      Delete
    46. Want in a secret, CI? I like my war heroes to not get captured, either! :)

      Delete
    47. ...and call me "old fashioned". Leftists are always chasing the "new".

      Delete
    48. Your "secret" was not terribly interesting, but you are playing the role quite nicely.

      Delete
    49. Most real insights aren't terribly interesting to those who think that they "know" otherwise. Socrates made almost no progress with his beloved student, Alcibiades, either...

      *shakes head*

      Delete
    50. You've a true head for business as well. "Contract Law". I'll be sure to tell my son's not to sign any without letting my daughter review them, first. :)

      Delete
    51. PS - We're you drafted? Most of my Vietnam Vet friends would have a good laugh over you allusions to some sort of "voluntary contracts"...

      Delete
    52. Ah, so you think that you know otherwise. Cool. You gave us no insight, but rather regurgitated yet another line from the guy who can't honor Veterans without spouting his tantrum.

      Nope, not drafted, retired rather recently and still serve as a Contractor...since you interjected it earlier. Yes - contract, in both professions.

      Delete
    53. Ah, the proverbial "double dipper". No one-scoop of ice cream for you! :)

      Timocracy may be dead, but it seems the need to feel "honored" for merely fulfilling the terms of a contract seems a bit strange.

      Delete
    54. Plato, "Republic"

      Ought I not to begin by describing how the change from timocracy to oligarchy arises?

      Yes.

      Well, I said, no eyes are required in order to see how the one passes into the other.

      How?

      The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of timocracy; they invent illegal modes of expenditure; for what do they or their wives care about the law?

      Yes, indeed.

      And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money.

      Likely enough.

      And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls.

      True.

      And in proportion as riches and rich men are honoured in the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonoured.

      Clearly.

      And what is honoured is cultivated, and that which has no honour is neglected.

      That is obvious.

      And so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money; they honour and look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonour the poor man.

      They do so.

      Delete
    55. Hmmm, not do much "strange," above... "superfluous" is a better word for it.

      Delete
    56. Like being upset if the guy at the drive-thru at McDonald's doesn't say "Have a nice day"... and then going in and complaining about the missing platitude to his Manager.

      "He didn't honor me!" Boo-hoo!

      Delete
    57. Mgr -Did he give you your burgers?
      CI - Yes
      Mgr- You got what you contracted for...so what's the beef?

      Delete
    58. Once again, we see bleating from the crowd who wet themselves over the very same thing during the last Administration, but here with a healthy dose of confusion as to the previous tangent on contracts.

      Try again.

      - CI

      Delete
    59. lol!

      Having proved you know nothing of virtue, it's clear you care naught about honour, either.

      You just want payment. :)

      Delete
    60. Or to be a "little" more accurate, "surplus payment".

      You should have put payments to your "sacred honour" in your Army signing contract. Trump owes you "nothing".

      Delete
    61. Contract...completely fulfilled! :)

      Delete
    62. Perchance, did you attend a military academy, like Trump and I did? You learn things there. Duty, Honour, Country, the martial virtues. THAT kind of stuff. Must seem kinda "superfluous" to you "contract warriors," I know.

      Delete
    63. Here's another little secret for you to contemplate. Wanna know where all that "surplus payment" jazz in the Constitutional "contract" lives? The Preamble.

      Delete
    64. You've shown that you're the very last person to try and school anyone on Duty, Honor, Country, Virtue, Brotherhood, sacrifice or Courage....based on your insistence of having the argument you want, rather than the argument at hand.

      You insist that I only want financial compensation, yet offer nothing in the way of what I've written, to support that. It's emotional projection, the hallmark of fragile Leftists.

      You should probably try and do better.

      - CI

      Delete
    65. You're in denial, CI.

      So military benefits aren't a mechanism of the voluntary contract between Citizen and State....but rather a "social justice"?

      Delete
    66. Before you respond, you might want to think about the difference between a virtue we all know and love as "justice" and the concept the Left has recently invented called "Social Justice".

      Delete
    67. Try thinking of it in terms of the difference between an lawsuit brought by an individual, and a "class action" lawsuit.

      Delete
    68. "Which" offers the plaintiff more actual "justice"?

      Delete
    69. You're trying to connect my response to Joe, that military benefits were not some sort of "social justice" but rather a function of the voluntary contract between Citizen and State [though the State retains the ability to alter said contract at any time]......with a Veteran caring solely for financial compensation.

      And you're failing. The Left has no role in this argument, since none of the participants claim to be Leftists. Now, since you allege this claim of one, you're actually alleging it of all Veterans, yourself included. So why proffer the argument?

      - CI

      Delete
    70. Wow, you have to be a Leftist to state a Left-originating argument? Who knew? Its something like saying, you have to be a Negro in order to quote MLK, Jr., or claiming that a right-winger can never quote Marx.

      You obvious believe that your "right" to military benefits originate in some sort of social contract, CI. Then, perhaps you can explain where they come from and "why" Trump's off-topic media criticisms at a tribute to "Freedom" constitute an offense to your "honour".

      Delete
    71. And just so there's no confusion, I am Joe Conservative. I am Speedy. I am FJ.

      Prove your NOT a Veteran caring soley for financial compensation. Show that you KNOW what virtue and honour consist of.

      Delete
    72. Wow, you have to be a Leftist to state a Left-originating argument?

      Nope. It's simply irrelevant to this discussion, at least as far as I was arguing. I'm not the one who tried to introduce 'social justice' into the discussion. But carry on all you wish on the topic. I don't really care.

      Where exactly do you believe the functions of the contract that you entered into, originate from, if not the stipulations of contract itself?

      Trumps comments don't offend my "honour". He's not important enough in my life for that to occur. He was disrespectful at a venue specifically designed to honor Veterans; it was not a campaign rally. And the lack of outrage from self-alleged Republican patriots is noteworthy in it's hypocritical nature, given the bedwetting during the previous Administration over similar [real of invented] slights.

      - CI

      Delete
    73. Ah nice...another multiple personality. Whatever.

      Delete
    74. ...and this, which will be "critical" if your argument is to succeed. Demonstrate that you know and understand the precise difference between justice (what you claim to demand) and wisdom (that which Trump exercises).

      Delete
    75. Prove your NOT a Veteran caring soley for financial compensation.

      You brought up the allegation, seemingly holding yourself apart from me....show ME that you're different. All you've done is bleat.

      - CI

      Delete
    76. ...wisdom (that which Trump exercises)

      Laughably subjective argument from the get go. Try again.

      Delete
    77. I've presented (and "sourced" my arguments. So either get to work, or put your tail between your legs and run.

      Delete
    78. Courage is "more" than a martial virtue.

      Delete
    79. You will, of course concede that "veterans" constitute a "social grouping" and therefor that paying homage (honour) to "veterans" constitutes a form of "social justice" won't you?

      Delete
    80. You will also concede that Trump is the CINC of all the veterans who attended the event, and aws CINC, is the only person capable of imposing his complete "wisdom" upon the attendees.

      Delete
    81. In other words, only King Solomon can "cut the baby in half." None of his "underlings" can order it.

      Delete
    82. Where exactly do you believe the functions of the contract that you entered into, originate from, if not the stipulations of contract itself?

      I've already told you, the preamble to the Constitution. It contain's the Spirit of the contract. It's the objet petit 'a for the document.

      Delete
    83. Fascinating. You've "sourced" your argument? (An argument you have pushed, rather than the one I was making) By posting sea stories on your blog? Those in no way proves that you aren't what you claim I am. Unless you've somehow given all of your retirement pay to charity and declined the slightest bit of medical treatment for any injuries or ailments incurred during service....or similar - and provable - altruistic act.

      But out of curiosity....how then, if one hasn't detailed their military career in the public sphere [for any myriad of reasons], does one meet the bar of evidence you seem to want? You brought up looking at things through the legal lens, please do tell.

      But kudos on trotting out the standard tripe of the internet troll - "prove the impossible to my satisfaction or run away". How sad for an adult to engage in this.

      I'm not touching your fellation of Trump's....."wisdom". I'm content to simply sit back and laugh.

      - CI

      Delete
    84. Preamble

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Delete
    85. Well, we need not sign a contract to enter military service, no?

      - CI

      Delete
    86. The difference between us, CI, is that I KNOW the difference between "justice" and "wisdom", and you don't. Therefore your comments represent "virtue signalling", and mine represent "actual virtue".

      Delete
    87. Well, we need not sign a contract to enter military service, no?

      One that "suspends" for the duration our "Constitutional Rights," correct?

      Delete
    88. ps - Can a man "sign" his way into "slavery/ bondage", CI? Why, or why not?

      Delete
    89. What are "Inalienable" rights and where do THEY come from?

      Delete
    90. Yep....superseded for the duration by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

      Therefore your comments represent "virtue signalling", and mine represent "actual virtue".

      Oh please continue...tell us more! This is rich. Nothing says interment troll like "I know more than you, so nyah, nyah, nyah....

      The self appointed smartest guys in the room are always the life of any party. Please carry on.

      - CI

      Delete
    91. Oh, my case rested long ago. You've simply been in cross examination. :)

      Delete
    92. Non-recognition of arguments is an interesting tactic, but doesn't win any arguments.

      Delete
    93. Readers can tell when someone "knows" something, and the other person is just talking out of his *ss.

      Delete
    94. Gentlemen,
      I see that you're having quite the discussion here.

      Bloggers having fun!

      I'll not interrupt again for a while. Carry on.

      Delete
    95. So you can't frame the parameters of the evidence you would seek? In the argument you desire? Fascinating.

      Your opinion of your legal mind [and philosophical] is....interesting. Introspection prior to allegation seems not to be a virtue with you.

      - CI

      Delete
    96. Readers can tell when someone "knows" something, and the other person is just talking out of his *ss.

      Indeed we can! Thank you for recognizing this salient point.

      - CI

      Delete
    97. Bloggers having fun!

      Less fun now that it's starting to be like watching a fart in a whirlwind. The mental gymnastics required for some faux-arguments must surly be tiring.

      - CI

      Delete
    98. So you can't frame the parameters of the evidence you would seek?

      I think I did that many posts ago...

      ...Demonstrate that you know and understand the precise difference between justice (what you claim to demand) and wisdom (that which Trump exercises).

      Simple definitions would suffice.

      PS - I've 60+ years of introspection. Show me (et al) that you haven't wasted all your time reading the Huff Post.

      Delete
    99. A simple definition of "virtue" would suffice. That way, you need not define two (wisdom/ justice).

      Delete
    100. You complain about Trump disrepecting your honour? Do you even know what honour is?

      Delete
    101. It was pretty clear, I'm referring specifically to your question: Prove your NOT a Veteran caring soley for financial compensation.

      I need not define anything for your benefit, as you're less than gracious [read: mature] in your requests....but since you correlate his inability to maintain a message to Veterans without petulant tantrums - to "wisdom", it's little wonder. Did Obama express the same "wisdom" when he used the military as a prop? Or are your philosophical positions framing entirely by the artificial constructs of a political party [read: convenience for the narrative]?

      - CI

      Delete
    102. My arguments are over 2,500 years old. Do you REALLY think they're "party-specific"?

      Do you really think that Plato defined these terms (virtue/wisdom/justice/courage/temperance) with a "slant" towards enhancing the values of a particular/specific political party?

      Delete
    103. Did Machiavelli define 'virtu' differently?

      Delete
    104. Do you really think Plato would endorse the pedestrian and mendacious manner in which your using them?

      - CI

      Delete
    105. He would recognize EXACTLY what I'm saying. :)

      Delete
    106. Plato, "Meno"

      MENO: There will be no difficulty, Socrates, in answering your question. Let us take first the virtue of a man—he should know how to administer the state, and in the administration of it to benefit his friends and harm his enemies; and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself. A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that, may also be easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep what is indoors, and obey her husband. Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue: there are virtues numberless, and no lack of definitions of them; for virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do. And the same may be said of vice, Socrates (Compare Arist. Pol.).

      SOCRATES: How fortunate I am, Meno! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm of them (Compare Theaet.), which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me?

      MENO: I should answer that bees do not differ from one another, as bees.

      SOCRATES: And if I went on to say: That is what I desire to know, Meno; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all alike;—would you be able to answer?

      MENO: I should.

      SOCRATES: And so of the virtues, however many and different they may be, they have all a common nature which makes them virtues; and on this he who would answer the question, 'What is virtue?' would do well to have his eye fixed: Do you understand?

      MENO: I am beginning to understand; but I do not as yet take hold of the question as I could wish.

      SOCRATES: When you say, Meno, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman?

      MENO: I should say that health is the same, both in man and woman.

      SOCRATES: And is not this true of size and strength? If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same. Is there any difference?

      MENO: I think not.

      SOCRATES: And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?

      MENO: I cannot help feeling, Socrates, that this case is different from the others.

      SOCRATES: But why? Were you not saying that the virtue of a man was to order a state, and the virtue of a woman was to order a house?

      MENO: I did say so.

      SOCRATES: And can either house or state or anything be well ordered without temperance and without justice?

      MENO: Certainly not.

      SOCRATES: Then they who order a state or a house temperately or justly order them with temperance and justice?

      MENO: Certainly.

      Delete
    107. (cont)

      SOCRATES: Then both men and women, if they are to be good men and women, must have the same virtues of temperance and justice?

      MENO: True.

      SOCRATES: And can either a young man or an elder one be good, if they are intemperate and unjust?

      MENO: They cannot.

      SOCRATES: They must be temperate and just?

      MENO: Yes.

      SOCRATES: Then all men are good in the same way, and by participation in the same virtues?

      MENO: Such is the inference.

      SOCRATES: And they surely would not have been good in the same way, unless their virtue had been the same?

      MENO: They would not.

      SOCRATES: Then now that the sameness of all virtue has been proven, try and remember what you and Gorgias say that virtue is.

      MENO: Will you have one definition of them all?

      SOCRATES: That is what I am seeking.

      MENO: If you want to have one definition of them all, I know not what to say, but that virtue is the power of governing mankind.

      SOCRATES: And does this definition of virtue include all virtue? Is virtue the same in a child and in a slave, Meno? Can the child govern his father, or the slave his master; and would he who governed be any longer a slave?

      MENO: I think not, Socrates.

      SOCRATES: No, indeed; there would be small reason in that. Yet once more, fair friend; according to you, virtue is 'the power of governing;' but do you not add 'justly and not unjustly'?

      MENO: Yes, Socrates; I agree there; for justice is virtue.

      SOCRATES: Would you say 'virtue,' Meno, or 'a virtue'?

      Delete
    108. Ever drive a chariot, CI?

      How about a quadriga?

      The Romans used to LOVE racing quadrigas. The race in Ben Hur is one of my favorites.

      Plato had a "chariot" too. He described it once in his "Phaedrus".

      Delete
    109. You may be driving a chariot, CI, but Trump has to drive a quadriga. If he f's it up, then the "four horsemen" take over. :)

      Trump's horses are named "Courage, Temperance, Justice, and Wisdom. There relationship is as folllows Courage:Temperance::Justice:Wisdom. Courage and Temperance are OPPOSING virtues. Wisdom and Justice are OPPOSING virtues.

      Plato, "Laches (On Courage) SOCRATES: And courage, my friend, is, as you say, a knowledge of the fearful and of the hopeful?

      NICIAS: Yes.

      SOCRATES: And the fearful, and the hopeful, are admitted to be future goods and future evils?

      NICIAS: True.

      SOCRATES: And the same science has to do with the same things in the future or at any time?

      NICIAS: That is true.

      SOCRATES: Then courage is not the science which is concerned with the fearful and hopeful, for they are future only; courage, like the other sciences, is concerned not only with good and evil of the future, but of the present and past, and of any time?

      NICIAS: That, as I suppose, is true.

      SOCRATES: Then the answer which you have given, Nicias, includes only a third part of courage; but our question extended to the whole nature of courage: and according to your view, that is, according to your present view, courage is not only the knowledge of the hopeful and the fearful, but seems to include nearly every good and evil without reference to time. What do you say to that alteration in your statement?

      NICIAS: I agree, Socrates.

      SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.

      NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.

      SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue?

      NICIAS: It would seem so.

      SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the parts of virtue?

      NICIAS: Yes, that was what we were saying.

      SOCRATES: And that is in contradiction with our present view?

      NICIAS: That appears to be the case.

      SOCRATES: Then, Nicias, we have not discovered what courage is.

      NICIAS: We have not.

      LACHES: And yet, friend Nicias, I imagined that you would have made the discovery, when you were so contemptuous of the answers which I made to Socrates. I had very great hopes that you would have been enlightened by the wisdom of Damon.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. CI,
      And a Happy Independence Day to you!

      Delete
    2. The Guardian Angel of Blogistan said

      How could you say that to a miserable character so steeped in ill humor he's lost all capacity ever to express glad ness or gratitude about anything?

      Don't you see how much of everyone's precious time his contempt and persistent denigration has wasted in pointless, fruitless argumentation? This is a person to whom I would not even bother to give the time of day, if he asked for it.

      Captious, demoralizing pessimists are very possibly our greatest "enemy within." Since they can't be silenced, they ought to be ignored. Ostracized.

      Tokyo Rose could never have hoped to find a worthier heir.

      Delete
    3. Guardian Angel of Blogistan,
      I try to be gracious to those with whom I often disagree when they extend graciousness to me. It is never a waste of time to extend graciousness.

      Delete
    4. How sad....much like a petulant child. Since he can't speak to me without being admonished, he has to constantly speak about me. Leftist are entertaining though....

      Baaaa!

      Delete
    5. CI,
      A bit of hyperbole there. Not constantly, and he is not a Leftist.

      Delete
    6. The Guardian Angel of Blogistan said

      > He who would gracious to the chronically surly will be surly to those who are gracious.<

      Delete
  8. AOW! HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY !!!! BIG HUGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! xoxoxox

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective