How Will History Treat George W. Bush?

“W” and History

George W. Bush – not an endorsement, I’m just asking a question...
By Jeff-March 26, 2007

I don’t know your personal opinion of George W. Bush. I agree with a number of things he does/says, and I have a number of issues with him as well. So, I have not come to praise – or bury – Caesar, but rather just to ask the following question for your pondering.

How will history treat George W. Bush?

I ask this question because history will often differ from public opinion of the time.

Let’s start with the hypothesis that Bush’s “historical value” will be based on the War on Terror and how he handles the issue of Illegal Aliens (i.e. – undocumented visitors). It would be fair to say that not only are Americans polarized on both of these issues, but there is also division amongst those who in or out of the “Bush ideology camp” as well.

From a general overview, “Pro-Bushers” will say that he has the fortitude and courage to “stay the course” and follow his convictions, no matter the fallout.

“Anti-Bushers” will argue that he doesn’t listen to his advisors or public opinion, and he is, therefore, an idiot.

I wonder how we will feel twenty or fifty years from now.

Here are a few examples of people whose public opinion did not match up with their historical significance. When you consider these examples, think of them not only in the context of their time, but also consider how they would appear in the age of the 24 hour news/gossip channel.

Abraham Lincoln: While history holds old “Honest Abe” as one of America’s greatest presidents, I would bet that Lincoln’s idea of freeing the slaves did not garner him great public support in the southern part of the USA. After giving black men the right to vote (before white women, I might add – wouldn’t that be a slap?), I am sure that he wasn’t making many friends in the north either. Did the news media argue that he didn’t listen to his advisors or the public? I don’t know. I do know that he stood by ideals that got him shot.

Observation #2 – Martin Luther King Jr. Again, like President Lincoln, history views Dr. King as a great man. However, in the context of the time, his ideas were not popular throughout the entire nation. His ideas were unpopular enough to get him assassinated as well. Again, while many people supported his cause, do you think that there were some within his closest circle that told him this was a bad idea? Maybe some told him to “play it safe, sit down, and shut up.” Did he listen to all of his supporters/staff? Again, I would venture not. Would the press and the court of public opinion have treated him the same as history would later view him?

Another example: Adolf Hitler. Those of you who know me well know that I have an odd fascination with the life and doings of history’s possibly most evil person. History views him as a mad-man, a man of pure evil, and a hate monger. However, in the court of 1938 public opinion, he was the savior of Germany. Hitler rose to great power (granted, partially through acts of skullduggery), brought Germany out of the Depression, and (I’ll bet you didn’t know) brought cars to the general public (he is responsible for the production of the Volkswagen automobile – the original Beetle is VERY similar to a version from the 1970’s.). Anyway –this is not a praise of Hitler, but rather to point out that prior to 1943 he was VERY popular in Germany, yet history (correctly) views him as a murderer and dictator.

Lastly, I submit Winston Churchill for your consideration. In 1938 and 1939 Churchill spoke loudly, and often, of the evils of Adolf Hitler (see above). If I remember correctly, he went as far as to say that Hitler’s Germany “should be neutralized before it creates a larger threat (or words to that effect)”. Churchill, at the time, was poo-poo’d as a war hawk. It was only later, in 1940 and 1941 during the Battle of Britain, where he was acknowledged as being correct. Now history views him as a great leader and a hero of WWII. In the 1938 & ’39 polls he was just a drunken goof.

Am I comparing President Bush to any of these people (good or bad)? Absolutely not. Am I praising or criticizing him? Certainly not. As I stated at the beginning, I agree with him on a number of things, I disagree with him on a number of things. I am interested though, to see how history will view him in 2020 or 2050. I hope I’m around to see it.

That’s the Soapbox! Thanks for readin’. Have a great day.
Jeff

Don Imus - Is he REALLY the devil?

By Jeff - April 11, 2007


Part of the problem in writing content for a web site before the site is “live” is that you sometimes miss the boat on current issues. As in, the event comes and goes before your content sees the light of “cyber-day”. That being said, I really feel the need to comment on the following topic. Rest assured that as I type this on April 11, 2007, the issue of Don Imus (yes, I’ll recap in a minute) is far from settled.

The issue – WFAN morning “shock-jock” Don Imus made the comment “nappy headed ho’s” on his radio show, while referring to the Rutgers’ Women’s basketball team. And now the whole world is calling for his firing for this “inappropriate” comment. One of the Rutgers ladies claims to be scarred for life from this insensitive slur.

Before jumping in – let me make the following “disclaimers” or “claimers” regarding this issue.

1 – When I worked at the local radio station (years ago), one of the treats of working midnight to 6a.m. was getting to listen to “Imus in the Morning” from 5:00 – 6:00 a.m. when the ABC-News feed came from New York. While listening one morning, Imus said the funniest thing I have ever heard on radio (which I will not repeat here). I was laughing so hard, that I could barely talk when my song was done.

2 – The previous note should give you insight to Don Imus. That fact that he said something that I cannot repeat (and this would’ve been about 15 years ago), should tell you that Don is a shock jock. He is paid a lot of money to create that uneasy laughter from people who are so shocked they can’t believe what they just heard.

3 – If you have ever heard him, like him or not, you must admit that Don is a very intelligent person. He banters (and clashes) with the Washington power brokers and newsmakers, and can hold his own during the course of discussion on any topic.

4 – That being said, from a social, gender and racial standpoint, Don Imus is a bonehead, always has been a bonehead, and will always be a bonehead.

There – now, let’s hop in:

I have heard Don Imus’ “nappy headed ho’s” comment in its original context (which is more than most people calling for his head can say) – and the comment was inexcusable. There is no way that it can be justified, other than complete stupidity.

Should Imus be fired for it? I don’t believe so, and here is why.

While his comments were damaging, I submit that far more damage against the “black community” and women is being done by the black community itself.

If you look at statistics, you will find that Imus is broadcast on 90 stations nationwide. According to recent information from Arbitron (the radio industry’s ratings bible), Imus has a weekly listenership of 3.25 million + about 335,000 on MSNBC. By and large, anything Imus says, with the exception of items that end up in the news like this one, is heard only once. It isn’t run again the next day, or in syndicated reruns like “Friends”.

In contrast, looking at the record sales of Fifty Cent (or Fiddy Cent, as he is know by the “in” crowd) and Snoop Dogg, you will find that these two have combined for sales of more than 30,000,000 discs (yes, that’s THIRTY MILLION). I single them out because they are notorious for repeatedly using the words “Ho”, “Bit*#es” and “Nigga”. Unfortunately, they are not alone. They are among of cast of thousands in the rap world that are using this language, and have been doing so, unchecked, for years. (Don’t get me started on the topic of double standards – that is a topic for another time)

Keep in mind, the songs on these discs aren’t heard just one time (how many times do your kids listen to the new, cool, disc?). These songs are heard hundreds of times by kids ranging 10 – 15 years of age (and older too). These children, boys and girls alike, are being inundated – or perhaps indoctrinated – that “ho” and “bi*#h” are acceptable terms for women. Little boys learn that this is how you treat women if you are “cool”, and girls learn that they are nothing more that this.

When you compare the two, Imus’ comments pale in terms of lasting damage done to the black community. And set aside the black community for a moment, because kids of EVERY color are listening to Snoop Dogg and “Cent”. This is not just a black issue. This should be an outrage to women of all races and status, yet, there seems to be very little.

Reverend Al Sharpton, a leader in the crusade to can Imus, indicated that this is only the tip of the iceberg. He has said, on record, that he will be going after rappers and the companies that promote them next. I hope he does. And rest assured, I will hold him to it (like I have any real power) and if he doesn’t you will hear about it on the soapbox.

That’s the Soapbox for today. Thanks for reading and have a great day.

Jeff

A Woman or Minority President?

By Jeff - March 14, 2007

Is it time for a woman or minority to be president?

Shortly after Barack Obama hinted that he would throw his hat into the ring for president, there was an article in our local newspaper that asked the question; “is it time for a woman or minority president?” I gotta tell you, I was a tad aggravated by the answers that were printed.

“Yes, it’s about time, it’s 2007 after all!”

“Yes, I love the idea of a woman president.”

The rest of the answers were basically the same.

I would like to make the following disclaimer – I love minorities, and I love women (I love them so much, I married one (so did my wife –well, marry a minority, that is - you can see that by my picture))! So please don’t get on me for being a bigot or sexist… but …

What on Earth does it being 2007 have to do with having a person of color or woman in a political office? I am all for someone other than a white male (and nothing against them either, just that’s all there’s been so far) sitting in the White House. However – I do have a problem with wanting to elect someone, regardless of their ability or ideology, simply because “it’s about time” to get someone in there.

This is nothing more than Affirmative Action re-rearing its ugly head. Reverse racism at its best. Of course, I can see how you’d want to support one of “your own”. Sure, it’d be great to have a black person make a serious and legitimate run for the presidency. However, I will NOT vote for Al Sharpton simply because he is black. Yeah, I love to listen to Reverend Al speak. He certainly livens up the otherwise boring Democratic debates, but let’s be serious, Sharpy is just nutty. Heaven help us if he actually got the nod. In the same vein, I can see how women would be glad to have a woman to vote for on the ballot. But – we must ask ourselves, is it better to have a woman (or a minority) on the ballot, or is it better to have someone qualified on the ballot? (Let’s not be putting words in my mouth – I am not saying that women and minorities are not qualified. You know what I mean here)

This manner of thinking is very problematic. It reminds me of the St. Paul (MN) Fire Department’s dilemma of a few years ago. Due to Affirmative Action rules, the department was required to have its employee demographic reflect the city of St Paul’s demographic make-up. So – if 1.4% of St Paul residents were Jewish, the SPFD had to have 1.4% of its firefighters be Jewish (and so on). Failure to do so resulted in fines or loss of funding. Again, I have no problem with this, provided that you have enough applicants to make up the 1.4%!!! The problem the SPFD was facing is that it did not have enough qualified minorities applying for the jobs. They were faced with lowering the requirements in order to get more recruits.

Now, one must ask, who benefits from the lowering of requirement? After all (no offense ladies), if you are a female firefighter, GREAT for you, but if you got in because of this government regulation, and now I die in a fire because you aren’t strong enough to drag me to safety, I’m suddenly not very pleased with you in your new job.

So – back to politics – If Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, Barack Obama or Cynthia McKinney (don't get me started on her) want to be president, go ahead, they may even have my support, but only because they EARNED it. If I just want to thumb my nose at “the Man”, I’ll vote for Larry, Curly and Moe again (which I have actually done in the past).

That's the Soapbox for today, Thanks for reading.

Have a good day.
Jeff

Poor President Ahmadinejad

By Jeff - September 26, 2007

Poor Mahmoud, he was done wrong.
The topic: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University on Monday, September 24, 2007. During his introduction, Columbia president, Lee Bollinger “took him to task”, as the American news organizations are reporting, saying that Ahmadinejad exhibits “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”. Bollinger also referred to Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust as “brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”

I SAY: Many Americans are standing proud today. “Boy, that Bollinger really told him. He really handed him his head.” The march of pride is being led by the news agencies (FOX and CNN alike), and we choose to jump on the bandwagon, when we should be ashamed.

Yes, it is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is partially responsible for the brutal treatment of his own citizens (even though he is the president, he is not fully in charge of the country). He is also the man who says that Israel should be wiped off of the map and the Jews will burn in the fire of Islam. He also denies that the Holocaust ever happened, claiming that it is nothing more than Hollywood special effects. I believe that he is a tad nutty, if not an all-out madman, but we are totally in the wrong by insulting him during his introduction at Columbia.

First – Columbia invited him to come and speak, claiming it was an educational experience for their students. President Bollinger was feeling the heat of national outrage that Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak on a campus whose students physically chased a representative from The Minutemen from the stage. Columbia also denies ROTC representatives to speak to students on campus (odd, the ROTC trains young men and women to protect our nation from people like President Ahmadinejad – hmm). I say to President Bollinger, if you are having second thoughts about having the president of one of the “Axis of Evil” countries speak in your auditorium, un-invite him!

Second – President Bollinger, since you did not un-invite President Ahmadinejad, he is now your guest. Like him or not, treat him as such.

Third – Right or wrong, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of a country/head of state. Again, whether you agree with him or not, he is due the respect that goes with that office. Unfortunately, we Americans do not even treat our own heads of state with the respect that is due the office they occupy anymore, so why would I expect that we would give it to someone else?

Fourth – If George W. Bush were treated like this on his speaking trip abroad (whether you like him or not) we would scream our head off about our president being “dissed.”

Fifth – As American’s such behavior is beneath us. This rude treatment is something I would expect from a third-world thug, not from the greatest country on Earth.

Again, I don’t disagree with the assertions of President Bollinger. After all, he was only using President Ahmadinejad’s own words. He was right in asking him to address his earlier statements and actions, but he crossed the line by making it personal.

That’s the Soapbox for today. Thanks for reading.

Have a great day.

Jeff