Children's Book Writers and Speech Writers

According to Sarah M. Pickert's 1978 article Repetitive Sentence Patterns in Children's Books [Language Arts, 55, 1, 16-8, Jan 78], using sentences and phrases over and over again helps children develop language skills. By having a base pattern upon which the author builds into different ideas, children to whom the book is read begin to follow along--expanding their vocabularies.


Such a technique has also been known to help adolescent hockey players come from behind to beat their larger, stronger Icelandic rivals. Many of you remember the scene where Emilio Estevez, the teacher, the old guy who sharpens blades and the team all take turns describing their fears. Each of their negative scenarios is followed by: "Ducks fly together!"


The complete opposite of this technique was used by Thomas Paine as he wrote Common Sense. I don't bring that up to discredit repetitive sentence structure in teaching children, but rather to illustrate the differences between the audiences of children's books and that of Thomas Paine. Common Sense was a brilliant pamphlet designed to help American Colonials realize that neither the Crown nor Parliament had America's interests in mind as they passed legislation that essentially tied the hands of the American settlers in governing themselves.


Common Sense was filled with logical arguments that were substantive and compelling. The publication and proliferation of Paine's pamphlet has rightfully been considered one of the major factors in America declaring her independence from Britain. One of the main justifications for this claim is that the pamphlet was written in a way that stirred the hearts and minds of both the educated and less-than-educated citizens in America.


One of my favorite books ever (besides Common Sense) is George Orwell's 1984. It is eerie and exciting to me. In this book, "the party" has taken over government, which it uses to control the thoughts and actions of its citizenry. Every room has a screen in it that can see and hear everything. Within the government are three ministries: The Ministry of Peace (which wages war), The Ministry of Plenty (which determines the minimal amount of rations to give out to the people) and The Ministry of Truth (which was the Party's propaganda machine). The Ministry of Truth--or in newspeak, minitrue--controls the news, language and history of the country. In an effort to weaken the already destroyed minds of the party members, Minitrue will occasionally switch historical documents in an attempt to rid the people of their memory. One month the country will be at war with Eurasia and the next, the same war will rage on against Eastasia.


Now in an attempt to tie these things all together, I reference Joe Biden's speech at the Democratic National Convention this evening. This is not the first time that I've seen a Democrat rally reduced to repetitive group chanting. As Joe spoke of his kindred relationship with John McCain and followed it with all the ways they disagree with each other, the masses brought out their props--red signs that read: "McCain: More of the Same". This pattern went on for quite sometime before I was called upstairs by my wife to say our family prayer with the children. As far as I know, they're still in the arena in Denver simulating a public school's kindergarten.


For years I have heard that Democrats and Socialists alike exercise power over their electorate to ensure dependency, which leads to more power and control for them. I've also heard that they think people are stupid. That has been confirmed tonight. They think that we are idiots. Grown men and women being reduced to the intellectual equivalent of kindergartners and first graders. It sickens me. They really believe that they are superior to anyone else. No wonder Joe Biden chose not to answer a challenging question from a reporter and instead responded with:

I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect! I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my -- in my class, uh, to have a full academic scholarship. And the first year in law school I decided I didn't want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school and in fact ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits -- I only needed 123 credits -- and I'd be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours, if you'd like, Frank. (None of which is actually true.)


Later on in that same Q&A session, Biden declared: "It seems to me that if you can speak you're a liability in the Democratic Party anymore." So, tying these things all together, I bring up one more point he made in his speech tonight. He told everyone at that convention that "No one is better than you. You are everyone's equal, and everyone is equal to you." Which sounds like the epitome of America: equality. Put into context with everything else he and his party represent, it sounds a lot more like 1984. The party becomes the government and everyone whose IQ does not match Joe's becomes equal to everyone else. No one is better than anyone else. This means: sports, math, science, professions--no variation. We all need the government to help us. Here is another zinger from this speech:


"But today that American dream feels as if it's slowly slipping away. I don't need to tell you that. You feel it every single day in your own lives. I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."


Again, it's the doom and gloom scenario followed by "Ducks fly together!" Democrats have no faith in Americans or in America. They only have faith in themselves, their agenda and their ability to control your life better than you can. They treat you like you're a child. They speak in nuances. They offer no substance. Their political correctness is the same as newspeak.


After seeing the delegates get so excited about being spoken down to, I worry that if any one of them were to pick up Common Sense they wouldn't be able to get through it without pictures and without rhymes. I hope it isn't too late for them--I know it isn't too late for America!

Setting the Record Straight

Today, I came across the blog of one of my long-time friends. I wasn't terribly surprised by the content of his posts, but nonetheless, as I read his thoughts, I found myself "correcting" most of his political points in my head. His political views were the easiest to break apart, but his thoughts on religion and the examples he used were harder to negate. From the context, I couldn't tell if his indictment of the Church is aimed at the doctrine of the Gospel, or at the way church members interact with one another, and with outsiders. If his beef is with the people, I completely understand where he is coming from, but I also find that his generalizations about the judgmental nature of church members is also fairly judgmental.

The difficulty in arguing about religion is that religion is personal. Sure, as members of a common church attend meetings, they do it as a group. But a church meeting is only going to be sacred for individuals who are prepared for it to be sacred. My friend's views on how things are at one church versus another are his views... opinions and personal exchanges are not empirical. All I can say is that my personal experiences are different.

But the one place where I can correct him, and without much difficulty, is on his analysis of the Iraq war and the period of time leading up to it. His view is a commonly held view among left-wingers, the historically ignorant and children who were not old enough to be aware of the political scene prior to '01. He posits the hype of "Bush lied, people died" as fact. One thing common sense tells us is that basing our political stances on the picket signs and chants of protesters is seldom a sound practice. There is no factual evidence that President George W. Bush lied to get us into Iraq. None. A lie, by definition, is to propagate a false statement with intent to deceive. I will now show why the statement "Bush lied, people died" is dangerously incorrect.

Even in the 1960's, different groups of Islamic militants began surfacing in various parts of the world. One of the first, which is still operating today in Egypt, is known as the Muslim Brotherhood. This group was a political party in Egypt that was outlawed because of its violent responses to people, places and entities with which the group had disagreements. Disagreements used to justify attacks by the Brotherhood, were often unknown to the victims of such attacks. This was the start of modern-day Islamic terrorism. Random attacks on groups of people continued on through the next several decades with little retaliation or deterrence. Groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda and others are now ubiquitous--and this is not a result of U.S. foreign policy.

Although I remember mention of Libyans attacking a nightclub in Germany and killing a significant number of Americans, the first attack I actually remember was in 1993--the first attack on the World Trade Center. Then from that point on, two American embassies were hit in Africa and one of our Navy ships, the USS Cole, was attacked by militants in a Yemeni port as it attempted a routine fuel stop. All of these things happened before most Americans even knew George W. Bush existed.

Mixed in with all of this generic Islamic militant radicalism, various states exhibited evidence of terrorism. Iraq was one of those. By visiting http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm, it is surprising to see how many documented incidents there were regarding Iraq, the UN and Coalition countries. Iraq violated UN Security Council resolutions one right after another. An on-again-off-again war had been taking place between Coalition forces and Iraq since Desert Storm in the early 90's. Throughout the entire decade, U.S., British, French, German, Israeli and UN intelligence had determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam Hussein sought, obtained and utilized weapons of mass destruction and biological chemicals for use in warfare. Politicians and diplomats across the globe condemned Iraq for this behavior (just as they are regarding Iran and its nuclear program).

The thought that George Bush lied by simply repeating the facts that existed through years of intelligence reports, both public and classified, is absolutely ludicrous. To believe such a notion, one must either have no grasp of recent history, or no grasp on reality. Similarly, to blame George W. Bush for a war in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else in the world because he happened to be the United States president at the time the Islamic fundamentalists' most severely escalated their war on the infidels and the West is also mind-boggling. This is the very point I made last night about blind faith. Why would someone blindly believe and repeat the psycho-babble of the 1960's anti-war throwbacks? Merely saying "Bush lied, people died" in any serious manner shows a complete inability to think logically.

What is going on with Barack in the Polls?

I would like to take a minute to stand up and voice my disgust for the intellectually degenerate among us. The individuals to whom I allude should be obvious. Their narrow-minded, my-way-or-the-highway mob mentality is both sickening and worrying. They are so enveloped in their blind faith that reasoned evidence standing in logical opposition to practically all of their views are simply ignored. Facts discredit their dogmatic truths. They are bigots, propagandists and evangelists...evangelists for the demise of America, Freedom and Liberty. The group I have described is known as the American Left.

It is the end of August, Anno Domini Two Thousand Eight. The United States of America stands alone as the beacon of strength for freedom-loving people all around the world. It was the United States' revolutionary success that inspired the French Revolution. The United States' Founding Fathers took the best bits and pieces of antiquity, along with historical, political ideals of self-governance, Liberty and accountability, and assembled them in the most perfect manner. They realized the form of government that the great minds of Aristotle, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau could only imagine. And since the birth of this new pillar of light among the nations of the world, America has been led and governed by the best of the best.

Names such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan come to mind as people think of leaders who have inspired the country. Less known presidents also inspired and guided America down the path of ensuring freedom and opportunity for the individual, such as Calvin Coolidge. With his notion of Americans working less for a swelling government and more for themselves and their families, Calvin Coolidge advocated the epitome of equality--equality of opportunity.

The problem today is clear. An overly intrusive federal government has created the entitlement mentality. Politicians, academics and journalists seem to be pushing an agenda that equality of opportunity isn't enough. To be fair, there is a need for equality of outcome. Calvin Coolidge's prescription that we work less for the government's social burdens and more for ourselves requires, first of all, that we work. If effort equals results and results are measured in compensation, then those who put forth less effort will have less compensation. For the weak-minded left, this is unfair. A company needs a custodian as well as a CEO is what most socialists would say. So, there should not be such a large disparity in pay scales.

Speaking of equal opportunity versus equal results and pay scales: Barack Obama is now statistically tied with John McCain in most polls. American journalists today are shocked by this. With the doom and gloom economy, dissatisfaction with the Republicans in office, an unpopular war and countless other issues, left-wing analysts (this includes most journalists) cannot see why Barack Obama isn't ahead by 15-20 points. So in their limited, elitist, narrow-minded, derogatory view of this country and the people that make up its citizenry, the Left immediately assumes that Barack's downfall is the racial tendencies of the American people. The high-minded Left looks at Barack Obama and sees a clean, articulate black man and nothing else. Ironically, they accuse the rest of Americans of the very thing of which they are guilty: not being able to see past the color of the man's skin.

What the Left doesn't grasp is that Obama has no substance, at least none that would appeal to anyone but a soviet. The Left, and in this case particularly: the media, is beyond gullible, they are delusional. This man comes in talking about "it's not black or white, male or female, old or young, Democrat or Republican... it's about hope and change and a new type of politics" and they believe it. They believe it so much that Chris Matthews gets a tingle up his leg when he hears it. In reality, Obama has just as much baggage as the worst politicians out there: racist preachers, terrorist friends (Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground), questionable real estate involvement, (ex-)employees that have been lobbyists for several out-of-the-mainstream groups, and some that have been publicly associated with illegal mortgage deals for politicians.

These blind followers in recent days have proposed that Obama's poll numbers are so terrible, because he is black. I propose that black is the only thing he has going for him. To illustrate what I mean, I go to the polls themselves. When no one knew anything about Barack Obama--before he claimed that children are a punishment for promiscuous youth, before he declared that he had been to 57 of the 60 states in America, before he referred to a series of Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor as "the bomb", and before he showed how presumptive and ill informed he is on both foreign and domestic policy--Americans knew he was black. When the color of his skin was all anyone knew, his numbers were considerably higher. Gallup, Zogby, Pew, CBS News/NY Times, Rasmussen, LA Times or any other pollster you look at, you can see an aggregate decline in Obama support. When black was it, he lead by sizable margins. Now that people have seen more and more of Obama and heard more and more of his gaffes, enthusiasm and support are dwindling.

If you have a minute, please pop over to Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

As you look at the numbers, from about Super Tuesday on, Barack Obama has a significant edge over John McCain. The numbers that the media employ to indict the American people, in all actuality, disprove their sole claim. Americans are not racist, all ethnic groups in America can succeed if they work at it, and Barack Obama's shortcomings cannot logically be blamed on Americans or on society, but on the emptiness of his character--and on that alone. Shame on the professors, journalists and left-wingers in this country. The facts, once again, prove you wrong. Try to grasp this. That would be a change you can believe in!

So Many Things I Want to Say...

There are far too many issues and events taking place in my fields of interest right now that to write about it all I would have to retire from actual work and make blogging my full-time job. Some days, such a proposal would sound very tempting, actually. I can easily picture myself as one of those bloggers or political commentators who contribute to the media's show prep everyday. But unfortunately, I don't believe there would be many people who care about what I have to say.

Last week, I had been reading one of George Washington's speeches (his first annual address to Congress, to be exact) when I came across the following line: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace"1. This is the very theory that Reagan employed to help defeat the Soviet Union--or rather, the Soviet oppression of its people along with its oppression of the people of other nations. Washington's statement also exposes the duplicity of a majority of left-wing politicians and activists at home and abroad. The most effectual means of preserving peace means that a well-trained, well-equipped standing military is a better practical, diplomatic option to ensure peace than any other method.

These liberal politicians and the activists that influence them declare their affection for this country as they belittle it. Revisions of history are common among these groups, and the history they fabricate is that the United States are oppressive, while governments like those in China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela are progressive, open-minded, and the ideal end of all political development. They are wrong.

Beyond the violent, inexcusable molestation of a sovereign nation, Russia's aggression in Georgia does little more than provide evidence that what most adherents of the ideology of democracy have been saying regarding Russia is true. The leadership at the Kremlin consists of Soviet militants, spies, and enforcers set on regaining complete domination in their region and beyond. To think that all the world needs for peace to reign is diplomacy is the thought of a naive child or a delusional adult. Neville Chamberlain and one of the first Kennedy's our country knew--not the president, but the ambassador--found an up-and-coming German leader to be charming and hospitable after hard talks. That little man went on to use non-sensical "science" to advance an agenda that resulted in the oppression and death of millions of people across the globe--just after Neville Chamberlain made his (in)famous declaration: "Peace in our time!"

Simply sitting down and talking to a leader or regime that is willing to kill civilians, damage private homes and businesses, and/or occupy a region merely because the inhabitants of that region look differently, speak differently or believe differently has never resulted in peace. The Russians need to be dealt with firmly via action, not through ineffective U.N. resolutions. Such resolutions, historically, have been even less effective than diplomatic talks.

When the Cold War ended "without a bullet being fired" it wasn't Reagan's enjoyable chats with Gorbachev that brought the USSR to its knees, but the preparation of our national defense the Soviets couldn't match that got the job done.

As I ponder all that is going on worldwide, it has occurred to me that the same people who want peace, but abhor the best means for preserving it are the people who have it backward on energy. Russia has had an economic resurgence because of the oil they secure domestically. The Middle East, Russia, China and Venezuela are mostly all antagonistic of America and all have uninhibited access to their natural resources, such as oil. The one consistent string tying left-wing individuals and organizations together around the world is their disdain for the ideals of America. They seek power for their ideology by forcing everyone else to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Looking at the world with the lowest common denominator mindset, the US and its allies should be brought down to the same economic and living conditions as third-world nations (i.e. the Kyoto Treaty), conservative principles founded in the ideal of freedom give birth to unilateral arrogance (it is unilateral when more than 20 nations enter Iraq after 12 years of U.N. resolutions failing), but the high-minded Russians entering Georgia is noble, as they are protecting Russian nationals (i.e. Soviets). It also can be seen in such places as the public school system. I will explain that in a later post. I love education, but I don't really care for a system that would rather an advanced student slow down to the pace of a not-so-advanced student--again, the lowest common denominator equals equality.