History Schmistory!

“It doesn’t matter if this painting is historically accurate! It offends my feminist and humanist sensibilities today and therefore it must be taken down and removed from our sight!“

Selectwoman Sarah Peake spun her chair around near the end of the Nov. 14 meeting, gazed up at an oversized oil painting depicting the Pilgrims voting on the Mayflower Compact when they first landed in Provincetown, and declared that she wanted it removed.

Mind you, it’s not that she didn’t like the look or the colors or the style. It’s not that she thought it was too big or too small for the Judge Welsh Hearing Room. It’s not that it clashed with anything around it.

No, what Peake didn’t like was that the painting didn’t include any women. That and the fact that the painting’s only Indian — Native American, I’d better call him — wasn’t holding a ballot like everyone else.
…
In other words, William Bradford and the rest of those piggish, prejudiced Pilgrims had the audacity to exclude Indians from their civic affairs and, like the rest of the Western world, had yet to give women the right to vote. So, get them out of here.

And only one brave woman had the guts to fight back. You’ll want to read it all – the Selectwoman Sarah Peake is now doing a real disingenuous dance about the whole thing.

Then, as long as we’re talking revisionist history and playing fast and loose with facts, go read Confederate Yankee’s response to Richard Cohen’s latest. Egad.

And THEN, because it’s so dang good, and so necessary and right – take the time to read Dr. Sanity’s new piece exploring DENIAL. Want a taste?

The Wonderful World of Denial allows someone to believe something is true, when it is obvious to everyone else it is false. Iit permits someone to pretend they are feeling “love” or other altruistic emotions when they are actually behaving in a hateful manner; it hides the truth by using big words and grand concepts to prevent an individual from feeling unacceptable feelings (some have called “intellectualizion” (example)–which is a defense mechanism related to denial– sometimes referred to as “denial gone to college”).

I would be engaging in “intellectualization” in this blog, if I tried to pretend that I was neutral and did not have feelings about the incidents I see every day in the news. I try to be objective (but I don’t have any particular obligation to be objective, since I am not claiming to be either a journalist or a saint); and I am committed to an objective Truth and Reality that exists beyond what I may want or feel it to be. On the whole, intellectualization is a step healthier than denial, which is generally considered exceedingly unhealthy in most cases; but it is still neurotic.
…
The examples of their unwillingness to face reality are everywhere. They pretend they didn’t vote for military action. They distort what was actually said and even when confronted with audiotapes and transcripts of what was said; they continue to deny that they meant any such thing. When confronted with what Bush or Cheney actually said about the reasons for going to war; they will insistently adhere to their interpretation of what was said.

Their denial is complete on this issue. It is simply not possible for them to admit that Bush was correct and they were wrong. This is unacceptable knowledge. Bush must be wrong, and America must fail for them to maintain not only their self-esteem, but also their worldview.

Can you guess where the good doctor is going with it? Let’s just say Joe Lieberman might be the last sane elected Democrat. Read it all. It’s a humdinger!

And then, lastly, check out Lorie Byrd, in perhaps her best column, yet doing two things: asking the president to finally set the record straight on Iraq, and asking Democrats what exactly it would take for them to “connect the dots.”

In light of this, voters have to ask on which side of the decision-making equation they want their leaders to err in this post-9/11 world. When it is pointed out that President Clinton was on-record saying the same things said by President Bush about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, many Democrats respond by saying, “Yes, but he didn’t take us to war over it.” That is exactly the point Republicans need to make. Someone needs to ask if Democrats would not take action knowing what they did about Saddam, and what would it take for them ever to decide to act against a known threat.
…
After 9/11, we all asked why the dots were not connected. We vowed that never again would our refusal to take action against known threats result in the slaughter of innocent Americans. The points made by Vice President Cheney in 2003 are ones that Republicans must make now. It is necessary, first, to lay the foundation by reminding the American public of what was known in 2002 and 2003, and refuting the big lie that has taken hold as a result of Democrat mantras parroted by a liberal media that Bush “lied” and “misled” the country into war. The administration has made a good start in that effort.

After the record has been set straight, it must be pointed out that Democrats are not to be trusted with the nation’s security. They have shown that not only will they endlessly debate until it is possibly too late but that after a military action has been initiated, in the face of difficulties and waning public support, many will back out and abandon the mission and the troops. The approach of the Democrats to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein as outlined in all of the intelligence reports available prior to the war in Iraq stands in stark contrast to that of the Bush administration.

I think Lorie is issuing a clarion call here for realistic considerations. I’m with her on both counts. President Bush has made some errors in this war but the biggest and most glaring has been his utter disinterest in keeping America informed and abreast of the situation over there, particularly when he sees that the press WON’T do it, and the Democrats won’t either. But the Democrats are signalling that they will make more glaring, more dangerous errors because they are afraid to ever take any action, particluarly if they don’t have a good idea of what the polls might say later one.

Someone suggested to me that the president is afraid to appear “proud” and that’s why he has not talked up all of the good going on over there. I say that’s nonsense. I don’t know WHY he is so reluctant to blow the horn, but his troops have earned it – they deserve to have their fine work touted, and he as CIC needs to get out there and do it definitively and finally.

And the Democrats need to get serious – really serious – about the threat of Islamofascism throughout the world, and stop playing politics with our future. Great post, Lorie!

So much for my keeping peacable….