The Pendragon's Hall

Sorry about the delay. I had a busy weekend. Anyway, I placed Ulysses S. Grant number 10 on the list, not really because I think he was that good, but because I think he deserves more credit than he gets. I hope to develop this more fully in an upcoming research paper, but I really think that the post-Civil War US was sliding into anarchy under Andrew Johnson and a Congress run wild. Grant was the one man alive who could unite the country. The South knew he was a man of honor and the North trusted his governing ability. While he certainly made mistakes, not the least of which was trusting people he shouldn't have, his eight years moved the country from anarchy and chaos back towards some semblance of normalcy. For this, while I agree he certainly is not the 10th greatest president ever, he should be in the top 20.

And now, something I always enjoy doing: Exploding the stereotypes. Neo-cons are never supposed to change their minds. But I, having given this more time than originally, will now present my "ranking" list after my considerations.

1. James Monroe
2. George Washington
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. John Adams
5. Andrew Jackson
6. Ronald Reagan
7. James K. Polk
8. George W. Bush
9. James Madison
10. Woodrow Wilson
11. Theodore Roosevelt
12. Grover Cleveland
13. Harry S. Truman
14. Dwight D. Eisenhower
15. John Quincy Adams
16. Thomas Jefferson
17. Rutherford B. Hayes
18. John F. Kennedy
19. Ulysses S. Grant
20. Franklin D. Roosevelt
21. Richard Nixon
22. George Bush
23. Chester A. Arthur
24. William McKinley
25. Martin Van Buren
26. Calvin Coolidge
27. Benjamin Harrison
28. John Tyler
29. Gerald Ford
30. William H. Taft
31. Herbert Hoover
32. James Garfield
33. James Buchanan
34. Millard Fillmore
35. Andrew Johnson
36. Warren Harding
37. Franklin Pierce
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. Bill Clinton
40. Jimmy Carter

Today I think I shall defend my inclusion of Reagan and Bush in "the top ten" and my placement of Jimbo Carter at last place. Clinton I shall say as little as possible about: he was evil and disgraced the presidency. Carter, however, was just plain incompetent.

Ronald Reagan is more than the champion of conservative Republicans; he was one of the great presidents of all time. Under Carter inflation and unemployment had reached the double digits. By the end of the Reagan era not only was it down but it has not gone back to that high level since. At the beginning of his administration Reagan called the Soviet Union "an empire of evil" (which it certainly was) and vowed to fight the Cold War to win, not to contain the evil. By 1989, the Soviet Union was crumbling; before the end of the first Bush administration it was finished for good. At the outset of the Reagan years Americans were mumbling about "the malaise" of being Americans and their preachy executive wasn't helping matters, what with surrendering what was left of central America to the communists, destroying the economy and letting terrorists in Iran dictate the state of things. By the end Americans were standing proud and tall again. We always do; just give us a chance. This is an amazing accomplishment--it is impressive to take a country on the downslide and bring it up, not take a country on the up and up and bring it down, like Clinton did.

As for Bush, well it is true I am rather partial to him. But he also is doing an impressive job as chief executive. In fact, his detractors apparently haven't heard that Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis (from Harvard) has listed Bush as one of only three great presidents in American history on foreign policy--the other two being James Monroe (my #1) and FDR, who was admittedly a great wartime president, even his domestic program was a little shaky. He has toppled two evil regimes in the Middle East, put their countries on a fast track to (admittedly) different but democratic governments. He has revived a slumping economy despite a recession brought on by wasteful spending and a terrorist attack on the source of our economic power. He has held on to both Houses of Congress, in fact increasing his party's lead in both Houses and being reelected by a majority when no other president elected by a minority in the popular vote has ever been before. People are free to say he is wrong but no one can say he will not be remembered--all the things said about him were said about Abraham Lincoln, who is now widely considered the greatest president ever. All in all, I think Bush and Reagan deserve to be high on the list of all-time greats. Tomorrow, I will discuss the enigmatic placement of Ulysses S. Grant as the 10th greatest president of all time. Weird? You betcha! Watch this space.

I see my list is generating discussion. Excellent. Let's have some more. I will spend the next few days explaining my reasons for choosing some of my more enigmatical placements and see where that leads us. Initially, you must understand, as per Mark's email, I was not using any specific criterion, I did what Sarah says in her comment I did, listed them how I liked them, which is what Mark told me to do and I will post his email in entirety if that becomes necessary. But being called an asshole always confirms me in what I do and so now I offer an explanation for some of the "oddities" as Sarah calls them.

First of all, why James Monroe? In 1823, the fledgling United States had to face the mighty empires of Europe. Worried about American expansionism, France, Prussia, Russia and Austria were planning to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, to keep the US within its limits. This is when James Monroe issued what became known as "the Monroe Doctrine" and basically told Europe to keep its hands off. He also did what Jefferson should have done and taking a stand apart from rhetoric allied the US with Great Britain. He was re-elected in 1820 with only one elector voting against him, and this simply because the man thought Washington deserved the honor of being re-elected unanimously to himself. Monroe got a free hand for the US in the New World and kept us out of war in the meantime by saying we would fight if necessary. Pretty good, considering no president before or after was able to do so much.

Why not Jefferson in the higher rankings? Jefferson's achievements are dubious. The Declaration of Independence may be wonderful and yeah, he stumbled onto the Louisiana Purchase by accident but the rest of his presidency was a whole rash of mistakes and bad judgments. Had he not been so all-fire pro-French he would have moved us closer to Britain, avoiding war in 1812, or had he followed John Adams' trend, we would have been prepared. Instead he drew closer to France in all things, ignored all that the French were doing to our shipping, put an embargo on Great Britain which virtually destroyed the American economy, cut back on our defenses so we were woefully unprepared when his rhetoric led like night to day into war with Britain in 1812 and also gave us a commentary on the Constitution that is about as faulty as they come, inasmuch as he had nothing to do with the Constitution. I give Adams a high-ranking spot despite his lack of success in being elected because if he had been re-elected, I believe war with Britain would either have been avoided or have been speedily won. In all, he was a much better President than Jefferson; he simply had the misfortune to speak the truth nobody wanted to hear.

I think that answers my curious listeners from the top 5. More tomorrow.... Feel free to talk amongst yourselves and to me about what I've said here.

In honor of Presidents Day, particularly George Washington's birthday today, I will post my ranking of the US Presidents that got me called an asshole by the lefty who commissioned it, apparently not really wanting to know what I think. You can check out his own if you want and if you can figure out what criterion he used to determine his rankings, I'd love to hear it. Personally I think he had less of a criterion than I did--I actually tried to base mine on who succeeded as President. But enough! Here is the list--note that two presidents--W.H. Harrison and Zachary Taylor--are excluded on the basis that their term in office was too short.

1. James Monroe
2. George Washington
3. John Adams
4. Andrew Jackson
5. Abraham Lincoln
6. Ronald Reagan
7. James Madison
8. George W. Bush
9. James Polk
10. Ulysses S. Grant
11. Grover Cleveland
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. Thomas Jefferson
14. John Quincy Adams.
15. James Garfield
16. Martin Van Buren
17. Harry S Truman
18. Theodore Roosevelt
19. John F. Kennedy
20. Dwight D. Eisenhower
21. Calvin Coolidge
22. William McKinley
23. Richard Nixon
24. George Bush
25. Benjamin Harrison
26. Chester A. Arthur
27. John Tyler
28. Gerald Ford.
29. William H. Taft
30. Woodrow Wilson
31. James Buchanan
32. Franklin Pierce
33. Millard Fillmore
34. Herbert Hoover
35. Franklin D. Roosevelt
36. Warren Harding
37. Andrew Johnson
38. Lyndon Johnson
39. Bill Clinton
40. Jimmy Carter.

The following is from my girlfriend's dad. It's quite funny too.

When Osama bin Laden died, he was met at the Pearly Gates by George Washington, who slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"

The following is from my friend Pieter:
HILLARY'S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT in January 2008
Hillary Clinton gets elected President and is spending her first night in the White House. She has waited so long..........
The ghost of George Washington appears, and Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?" Washington says, "Never tell a lie." "Ouch!" Says Hillary, "I don't know about that."
The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appears... Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?" Jefferson says, "Listen to the people." "Ohhh! I really don't want to do that."
On the third night, the ghost of Abe Lincoln appears... Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?" Lincoln says, "Go to the theater."

Enjoy, people! :-)

Well, just one year after I blogged an entry detailing the death of a Houghton student, death again stalks our community. Yesterday afternoon, a little boy of about 8, died while being taught swimming in our gym pool. I was there, and so was my girlfriend who was teaching one of the other groups (thankfully not the one the little boy belonged to). But it is stunning and sorrowful nonetheless.

I am at a loss for words in situations like these. C.S. Lewis seems to say it best: "You go to God when you really need Him and what do you find? The door slammed shut in your face, and the sound of double-bolting from within." I am compelled to ask the question, "Why? How could a good God allow this? He was just a kid!" And I am compelled to answer, "I don't know. I haven't any answers. I know in my head that God does not wish this any more than I do, but as to why it still happens? I have no answer." The silence of Heaven seems unbearable at times. I cannot say anything or do anything to alleviate the suffering of those who were there in a more real sense than myself, or the parents who have now lost a second child to drowning. I can only hope that God will do something for them all...and for my own hurting heart.

Do you who live in heaven/Hear the prayers of those of us who live on earth;
We are afraid of being left by those we love/And we get hardened by the hurt.
Do you remember when you lived down here/And we all scraped
To find the faith to ask for daily bread?
Did you forget about us/After you had flown away
I've memorized every word you said.
Still, I'm so scared I'm holding my breath.
While you're up there, just playing hard to get.

Do you who live in radiance/Hear the prayers of those of us who live in skin;
We have a love that's not as patient as yours was/Still we do love now and then.
Did you ever know loneliness? Did you ever know need?
Do you remember just how long a night can get
When you are barely holding on and your friends fall asleep
And don't see the blood that's running in your sweat?
Now, those who mourn are left uncomforted
While you're up there just playing hard to get.

I know you bore our sorrows and I know you feel our pain
And I know it would not hurt any less to have you just explain
And I know that I am only lashing out at the one who loves me most
So after I have figured this somehow, all I really need to know is

If you who live in eternity hear the prayers of those of us who live in time,
We can't see what's ahead and we can not get free from what we've left behind;
I'm reeling from these voices that keep screaming in my ear
All these words of shame and doubt, of blame and regret
I can't see how you're leading me, unless you led me here
To where I'm lost enough to let myself be led.
So you've been here all along I guess.
It's just your ways, you aren't just playing hard to get.

--Rich Mullins.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to deny the media's bias when it shows through in such clumsy ways. Yes, if you still deny it, I just called you an idiot. Take two examples from today's news:

I signed on AIM.com, connected to CNN.com, and the headline blared: "It's on the table: Bush open to payroll tax hike for social security." Democrats have been trying to get us to believe for weeks that Bush will sacrifice everything for social security, even his tax-cutting, and I was momentarily frightened that maybe for the first time in seventy years they called it right. Then I read the story and discovered that Bush actually said the one thing he was not open to was a hike in the tax rate. The headline apparently referred to him mentioning in passing that it was an "option" to raise the wage level above $90,000, meaning that social security would be taken out of wages higher than $90,000. This is not the same thing as a tax hike--yes, it's making people pay more taxes, and yes, I don't think he should but it's not what the headline would have made you think. Besides which the White House Press Secretary quickly tried to disentangle himself by telling the press, "saying that it's an option doesn't mean he'll take it." Should have hammered that point home a little harder. The press wants to make hay with this so they can make Bush's base dissatisfied with their leader.

Another has to do with the report that Arlen Specter (Democrat-Republican, PA) has Hodgkins Disease. Specter is probably the second most liberal "Republican" in the Senate, right after John McCain, and so the press feels it necessary to lionize him and to summon up sympathy. I'll just excerpt the article. I am sorry for Arlen Specter, but this is just crazy: "Specter, a 75-year-old Pennsylvania moderate who just won re-election to his Senate seat, became Judiciary chairman in January. ...Specter is the first Pennsylvanian elected to five Senate terms, but his 2004 victory was the toughest of his career. Specter barely defeated a conservative former congressman in an April 2004 primary in a race where his age was contrasted with that of his youthful-looking opponent....Intellectual and prickly, Specter is one of a dwindling breed of moderate Republicans in an increasingly polarized Senate. He plays squash nearly every day and likes to unwind with a martini or two at night. " (www.cnn.com).

Poor, poor Arlen Specter. What a nice guy. Catch them saying this about President Bush or Dick Cheney if it happened to them. When Cheney had his heart trouble the only mention the press gave was to wonder if he could continue to serve as Vice President.

Somebody has commented recently that I apparently never think that Bush does anything wrong. The words "pesky brat" were used in connection with someone apparently just like me. How mature...anyone who agrees with Bush is a "pesky brat." I wonder how it makes one's intelligence superior to criticize Bush on anything. But I will humor the public. I do disagree very strongly with Bush on immigration. I think he's making a huge mistake in stepping out of line with the American public and one that could be costly down the road. I also take exception with his statement that we need "primarily to change hearts" not laws in fiascos like abortion and gay marriage. It sounds good, but, Mr. President, how many hearts are we going to change? The majority of the American people are already behind you on this one. Now it's the time to start changing laws...and how about a few judges?

Another person complains about an earlier blog entry in which I endorsed the so-called "torture" of Muslim prisoners. Turns out it wasn't even really torture, it was psychological coercion. This person complained that I would "have a field day" if it was done to our soldiers. Sorry, honey. It is done to our soldiers. In fact worse things are done to our soldiers. Our soldiers and our civilians too have their heads sawn off on Iraqi TV. Given the choice I'd rather have menstrual blood on me, or red ink as it really was than be decapitated. Nor is government required to "treat people the way Jesus would treat them." Instead, Paul says in Romans 13, that government is an instrument of God "to punish evil" and those who do wrong should fear it because it "does not bear the sword for nothing." Vengeance is another concept discussed in Romans 13. The main problem as well with this constant focus on the torture is one would think it's all American soldiers do. The American troops have been extremely longsuffering in every sense of the word. Some of them have entered burning buildings after being ambushed and carried their wounded attackers to safety. They hand out food and candy and play soccer with Iraqi kids (at least the ones not being used as bombers). They rebuild schools and hospitals and guard law-abiding Iraqis against the terrorists. As individuals, the American soldiers are being "Good Samaritans"; as representatives of a government bent on avenging the evil these terrorists have done, they are not bound to honor the Sermon on the Mount.

The following is completely against my principles, but I felt it necessary. I promise I won't do it much.

Last year around this time I wrote a very bitter diatribe against the February Holiday. At the time I was a bitter young single and I admitted it. My AIM away message declared, "I hate Valentines Day. I know nobody likes me. Why do we need to have a holiday to emphasize it?" I still remember that feeling and so I can relate to those who feel that way today.

But I myself no longer feel that way. I knew it would happen if I ever did find the Right Person. And I did and it has. When you meet the right person, though, every day is Valentines Day. You don't need some sappy holiday in the middle of February to tell you to start feeling romantic. You already do. When you see that person coming, or when you hear her voice over the phone and it sounds excited to hear from you, your heart begins to beat and your hands to get sweaty just like they did on your first date. A smile from that one person can brighten an otherwise lousy day. To see them sad or hurting can ruin an otherwise great day. This one person has the power to make you tremendously happy or tremendously sad. It's a huge risk, like all relationships but it is well worth taking, especially when it works out. So, this year, on Valentines Day, I am no longer so bitter, because I know that one person likes me, loves me in fact, and always will. And I will always love her as well. Happy Valentines Day, Gillian. :-)

To go further into this idea of "Black History Month" it is pretty much like Kwanzaa--a month for white people who feel guilty about being white trying to pretend that being black, so far from being a stigma, is actually the magic cure to get one out of purgatory. If we must celebrate this month in order to help Africans feel at home here and get them to include the tag "Americans" after their racial classification (you can tell by the fact that "African" or "Asian" comes first what part of their heritage they are really proud of) then let us at least celebrate black people who did something worth while. It is especially annoying when Christians begin to ignore obvious fallacies for the simple reason that the person propagating them has a darker skin color than the average. So far in my college career here at Have-It University (my apologies to Peter Kreeft for appropriating his term) I have heard poetry with explicit sexual references read in chapel because Maya Angelou wrote it, I have heard the black racism of James Cone taught in theology class with little or not critique, and I have seen our campus store selling a book by incoming Senator Barak Obama (D-ILL), notwithstanding the fact that the good senator sponsored state legislation making it not only legal but obligatory for doctors to leave survivors of abortion to die (the bill was so extreme few other Democrats even rallied to the cause). But that's ok: the above are all black and to show them that we're really sincere in regretting slavery, we must celebrate their achievements, whatever those achievments happened to be. You'd think a Christian college could come up with a better way to celebrate. What about black spirituals or the great Christians who helped move the black people forward--Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Sojourner Truth? Sure, we can celebrate the heroics of Frederick Douglass and MLK, Jr, but why do the white men without whom they could never have succeeded get ignored? This is a real puzzle to me and has led to a sort of "reverse racism" which it never was supposed to--now blacks are all given the benefit of the doubt while whites are reviled. This is no better than the original system. Is it any less racism when a black preacher refers to white Christians as "the church of the anti-Christ" and calls on blacks to separate from them? There are no distinctions made for white Christians in Cone's writing. How about Desmond Tutu? He espoused the principals of the communist Viet Kong and exulted in the "defeat" as he saw it of American forces. How could Frederick Douglass have taken the stand he did without be ginned up by white men, including the man he thought "too conservative"--Abraham Lincoln?

Let's teach black history, by all means, many of them have made tremendous contributions to American society. But let's teach it through the same scope we teach white history: we do not belittle the good, nor do we excuse the bad. This unqualified praise of all black people everywhere, as if being born black is somehow a mark of sainthood, is no better than when white people were burning crosses and not accepting black testimony in court. Those of us in academia should be smarter than that.

I don't understand people who can't get a hint. If I were the Democratic Party I wouldn't be calvalierly dismissing President Bush out of hand and talking grandly of how they will "not let" his plans succeed. That's how they've been treating him since Florida declared in 2000. What has happened to them? They lost the Senate and the House has only grown more Republican. Governorships are still mostly in the hands of the Republican Party and President Bush was recently re-elected with a 51% majority of the largest voter turnout in history. If they keep going on about this, the Democratic Party will cease to exist as a major opposition party by the time Hillary gets ready to run in 2008 and she'll have to form the HillaryCare Party in order to run, made up mostly of rejects from the old Communist Party. With Howard Dean as party chairman, anything is possible. John Adams ascribed the Federalist defeat in 1800 to vastly overrating their own influence and popularity. The Democratic Party may be headed for the same fate because the Democratic Party has made the same mistake.

And what is with the international community? Iran has shown their idiocy by grandly declaring that they will "retaliate" against any attack by the US or Israel to enforce the non-proliferation laws. It's like Homer Simpson..."Duh. Let's see here. Last time someone took this line the US and Britain wiped them out. Uh, last two people actually. Uh...no, every person who's ever taken this line. Uh...." (Thinking hard). "I know! Let's take the old Saddam line!" The fact that even France is on the bandwagon for this one should tell them something. When the French are ready to enforce UN decrees, the US is probably already enforcing them. The French have this habit of catching the fever after everyone else. Iran is pursuing its own way willy-nilly? Should the US invade? I don't know. But at thet very least, Iran is only displaying its own stupidity by taking a hard line. Why it is that the only American President in a quarter of a century to enforce his will should be the one everyone thinks they can run circles around is beyond me. But the Iranian mullah will soon find themselves seated next to the New Left if they think they can snub Bush and his plans.

Well, the Super Bowl is over and I at least picked the right team if not the right score. Deion Branch definitely deserves his MVP award as the one Patriot offensive player to play consistently well. Tom Brady was not his usual stunning self, but I think it can be argued that Donovan McNabb ought to be the MVP as it was his stupid mistakes, outweighing even Brady's, and three interceptions that doomed the Eagles. The defense played well. Terrell Owens played outstandingly well. It's interesting that McNabb can play pretty well but as soon as the game is important, say, the NFC title game or the Super Bowl he goes about to do all he can to prove Rush Limbaugh right when he claimed the black QB was overrated. All I have to say on that score is, "Happy Black History Month!" Congrats to the New England Patriots on winning their third title in four years--this means half of Philadelphia will be murdered by angry Eagles fans and store windows all along the way will be smashed by drunken Bostonians. Part and parcel of the game and the real reason big cities shouldn't be allowed to own football teams. At least they lost the presidency. One of these days Adam Vinatieri will be MVP when show-crazy football fans realize the Patriots would never have won these games without him. But for now, the New England Patriots reign supreme as the NFL's latest dynasty--by 3006 it will be the Bills' turn and perhaps next year we'll see the NFC actually find an answer to the AFC's dominance. Until McNabb learns to run a professional offense, this probably will not be the team.

Democrats really are strange creatures. As Gandalf said in "Lord of the Rings", except I'm not smiling kindly when I say it: "You can learn all there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you." One might think the response of the loyal opposition to the President's proposed social security reform and his subsequent campaign in five states would be to rush home and pour out letters and speeches detailing their plan and decrying the Bush plan. But the Democrats don't even seem to be doing that. Instead they rush off to have their picture taken by a statue of FDR, the "father of Social Security." There is no rhyme or reason or rational basis at all to what these people do. The President gives a plan that he is willing and able to implement and they have their pictures taken in protest. Good grief! No wonder the Democrats as a party are crumbling. If they don't reverse the trend soon, there will be a handful of leftist extremists left and the huge majority will revert to the Republicans. Bush is doing what Jefferson did before him: he is destroying, not merely stunning, the opposition.

President Bush did us neo-conservative Republicans proud tonight. He did not back down and he did not mince words. On every issue, from blocking judicial nominees to reforming social security, he faced the cameras and articulated his message. It is about time that Democrats in Congress, rather than block needed legislation, put their heads to making this country work. Some might claim that our Founders really wanted branches of government to block each other and that's true to a point, but the Founders also rather hoped that this would be done in the interest of the country. Democrats block judicial appointments and necessary legislation not because they think it will be bad for the country but because they do not want George W. Bush to go down in history as the great president he deserves to be known as. This kind of partisan bickering is certainly not worthy of a party that wants to be a loyal opposition. If the President can show the same relentless determination through the next four years that he showed tonight, we won't have to worry about Hillary in 2008 because her party will have long since ceased to exist. I believe the Democrats as they stand today are headed for the same fate as the Federalists and the Whigs and for pretty much the same reason: they are out of the mainstream.

So today marks the beginning of Black History Month. I was asked recently what Black History Month is. What it really is, I explained, is a bunch of white people who feel guilty for not being black trying to find things to celebrate in black history. Just like Kwanzaa is a bunch of white people who feel guilty that pagan African religions don't get as much airtime as Judaism and Christianity in the list of nationally-recognized holidays. The thing that gets me about these people is that they always choose to celebrate the wrong things. Instead of Booker T. Washington, we get Martin Luther King, Jr. Instead of Harriet Tubman we get Maya Angelou. My suggestion? Let's just teach history and make sure that blacks get equal play. When one starts compartmentalizing history becomes meaningless--it's just a way for apologists for a certain group, whether it be women, blacks or what have you, to spread their propoganda. I think it's funny Black History month doesn't have a day for teaching about Black racism or the slave trade in Africa. Go figure.