PDA

View Full Version : Garrison Keillor is Right!


stevekaw
09-07-2006, 18:45
Syndicated commentary by Garrison Keillor which appeared nationally today...

What really makes our nation strong

By Garrison Keillor
Originally published September 7, 2006

Growing up in the '50s, we imagined our country defended by guided missiles poised in bunkers, jet fighters on the tarmac and pilots in the ready room prepared to scramble, a colonel with a black briefcase sitting in the hall outside the president's bedroom, but Sept. 11 gave us a clearer picture. We have a vast array of hardware, a multitude of colonels, a lot of bureaucratic confusion, and a nation vulnerable to attack.

The Federal Aviation Administration has now acknowledged that the third of the four planes seized by the 19 men with box cutters had already hit the Pentagon before the FAA finally called there to say there was a problem. The FAA lied to the 9/11 commission about this, then took two years to ascertain the facts - a 51-minute gap in defense - and released the finding on the Friday before Labor Day, an excellent burial site for bad news.
So America is not the secure fortress we grew up imagining. Perhaps it never was. What protects us is what has protected us for 230 years: our magnificent isolation. After the disasters of the 20th century, Europe put nationalism aside and adopted civilization, but we have oceans on either side, so if the president turns out to be a shallow, jingoistic fool with a small, rigid agenda and little knowledge of the world, we expect to survive it somehow. Life goes on.

It's hard for Americans to visualize the collapse of our country. It's as unthinkable as one's own demise. Europeans are different: They've seen disaster, even the British. They know it was a near thing back in 1940. My old Danish mother-in-law remembered the occupation clearly 40 years later and was teary-eyed when she talked about it. Francis Scott Key certainly could envision the demise of the United States in 1814 when he watched the bombardment of Fort McHenry. Abraham Lincoln was haunted by the thought. We are not, apparently, though five years ago we saw a shadow.

We really are one people at heart. We all believe that when thousands of people are trapped in the Superdome without food or water, it is the duty of government, the federal government if necessary, to come to their rescue and to restore them to the civil mean and not abandon them to fate. Right there is the basis of liberalism. Conservatives tried to introduce a new idea - it's your fault if you get caught in a storm - and this idea was rejected by nine out of 10 people once they saw the pictures. The issue is whether we care about people who don't get on television.

Last week, I sat and listened to a roomful of parents talk about their battles with public schools in behalf of their children who suffer from dyslexia, or apraxia, or ADD, or some other disability - sagas of ferocious parental love vs. stonewall bureaucracy in the quest for basic, needful things - and how some of them had uprooted their families and moved to Minnesota so their children could attend better schools. You couldn't tell if those parents were Republicans or Democrats. They simply were prepared to move mountains so their kids could have a chance. So are we all.

And that's the mission of politics: to give our kids as good a chance as we had. They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas. Maybe the old doctrine of grace is good enough.

I don't get much hope from Democrats these days, a timid and skittish bunch, slow to learn, unable to sing the hymns and express the steady optimism that is at the heart of the heart of the country. I get no hope at all from Republicans, whose policies seem predicated on the Second Coming occurring in the very near future.

If Jesus does not descend through the clouds to take them directly to paradise, and do it now, they are going to have to answer to the rest of us.


Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country. His e-mail is keillorj@prairiehome.us.

josh
09-07-2006, 19:15
I have listened numerous times to Mr.Keillor.He may not be a hardline communist but he is a lot closer to Marx than Jeffferson. He troutinely regurgitates the mainstream media like it is gospel.
We all believe that when thousands of people are trapped in the Superdome without food or water, it is the duty of government, the federal government if necessary, to come to their rescue and to restore them to the civil mean and not abandon them to fate.
This statement has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.Mr keillor is no friend of liberty.
I could get his drivel from any student of my local university.

Boogyman
09-07-2006, 19:53
Good post, SteveKaw. ;)

I always liked Garrison Keillor, he has a way of clarifying things and making you chuckle at the same time.

This one is pretty sobering, though I find myself agreeing with him once again.

cowboy117
09-07-2006, 20:00
Garrison Keillor is left.[But i confess to kind of liking him anyway!]:blink:He used to have great musical guests on his program[maybe still does].Haven't seen or heard the show in a while.I liked the radio version better.Made you use your imagination and the sound effects were great.

freesw
09-07-2006, 23:07
Growing up in the '50s, we imagined our country defended by guided missiles poised in bunkers, jet fighters on the tarmac and pilots in the ready room prepared to scramble, a colonel with a black briefcase sitting in the hall outside the president's bedroom, but Sept. 11 gave us a clearer picture. We have a vast array of hardware, a multitude of colonels, a lot of bureaucratic confusion, and a nation vulnerable to attack.

Yes, the situation today is different, of course, as our president continues to remind us. Today's stateless enemies are not deterred by mutually assurred destruction, as yesterday's were.

...So America is not the secure fortress we grew up imagining. Perhaps it never was. What protects us is what has protected us for 230 years: our magnificent isolation. After the disasters of the 20th century, Europe put nationalism aside and adopted civilization, but we have oceans on either side, so if the president turns out to be a shallow, jingoistic fool with a small, rigid agenda and little knowledge of the world, we expect to survive it somehow.

Yeah, but what's happening is the wholesale mortgaging of the future for the present...for reassurance, for comfort, for money, for political gain, and for a short-sighted form of national security that cannot possibly be maintained much beyond Bush's current term.

It's hard for Americans to visualize the collapse of our country. It's as unthinkable as one's own demise. Europeans are different: They've seen disaster, even the British. They know it was a near thing back in 1940. ... Francis Scott Key certainly could envision the demise of the United States in 1814 when he watched the bombardment of Fort McHenry. Abraham Lincoln was haunted by the thought. We are not, apparently, though five years ago we saw a shadow.

Clearly, many people are extremely uncomfortable, though, in ways they were not before 9/11 - which is to be expected. The problem is in the reaction of many, that somehow the answer to this problem is the same solution we prepared for but were terrified to actually implement during the cold war. Too many of us have forgotten how horrible the use of nuclear weapons truly are, and now there is a "nuclear survivability" cottage industry that, while it does have some truth behind it, namely that it's better to try to survive than give up, probably gives some a false sense of hope. Only the very well-connected can seriously hope to escape the fallout that would circle the northern hemisphere after most types of nuclear attacks.

We really are one people at heart. We all believe that when thousands of people are trapped in the Superdome without food or water, it is the duty of government, the federal government if necessary, to come to their rescue and to restore them to the civil mean and not abandon them to fate. Right there is the basis of liberalism.

Yeah, I disagree with Josh about that. Lots of tax money has gone to FEMA over the years. That was no imaginary disaster; those folks really did deserve help (though it's reasonable to expect that most of them would have found jobs and new homes by now).

The issue is whether we care about people who don't get on television.
...
And that's the mission of politics: to give our kids as good a chance as we had. They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas. ...

This requires an entire book to adequately begin to address. In a nutshell, I do believe that "interdependence" is more than a slogan, it is a factual description of the complexity of the modern world. When circumstances get really bad for some, they tend to get bad for the rest, sooner or later. We're seeing that played out in the illegal immigration situation. Even if the sufferrings of other groups of people don't affect us directly, even if they're out of sight and out of mind, they do impact us, in subtle spiritual ways.

If we are going to have a government anywhere near as comprehensive as ours is and has been for over a century, and especially when all the ways in which government furthers the interests of the wealthy and powerful are considered, it is only right and just that the government also provide a safety net. Whether it would be better to have a government that simply guarded the borders from external threats and acted as a referee within them is a moot point; that hasn't been the case for nearly as long as the republic has existed. There have always been lobbyists, only the name for them changes.

However, just because governmental influence peddling has always been with us, that is no reason to accept it as a necessary fact of life. It can be limited, if we the people demand it as a condition for voting for politicians. We'd just better do it before the "Diebold revolution" is over.

I don't get much hope from Democrats these days, a timid and skittish bunch, slow to learn, unable to sing the hymns and express the steady optimism that is at the heart of the heart of the country.

Isn't that the truth <_<

I get no hope at all from Republicans, whose policies seem predicated on the Second Coming occurring in the very near future.

I'd say that would explain why today's GOP treats the government the way a CEO treats a company that's only concern is the next quarter, except that I don't think Christians, even of the premillenial dispensationalist disposition, have ever really had much say over Republican policy, when it gets down to it.

If Jesus does not descend through the clouds to take them directly to paradise, and do it now, they are going to have to answer to the rest of us.

I'm waiting to see what they will say when global warming comes to pass in ways that not only can't be ignored, but are most unpleasant. And pollution generally makes earth a far more dangerous place to live than ever before, and the rate of cancers and other industrial diseases skyrocket. At the moment most of them say that all this is unproven, yet anyone with any sense can clearly see what is happening to the environment. What will be their excuse then?