A Must Read!

[tomchamp]

Anybody heard of this man! Zell Miller...I started reading his second book yesterday! He's got it right! BTW! Could not put it down! He's a Dem, but don't hold that against him! Anyway to any readers out there check it out.

http://stroudhall.com/index.php/section/moreinfo/a_deficit_of_decency/

 

[rraley]

Yeah he's the guy who delivered the keynote speech at the RNC this year...most of us have probably heard of him. I just finished reading his book...alotta good ideas, alotta terrible ideas. I absolutely value his status as a conservative Democrat and believe that he had a right to support President Bush's campaign, but his RNC speech struck me as over the top.

 

[vraiblonde]

his RNC speech struck me as over the top.

Funny as hell, though And almost as good as him wanting to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel

This Republican thinks he's senile. I appreciate him going to bat for Bush but he sounded like a nut doing it.

 

[Lenny]

Funny as hell, though And almost as good as him wanting to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel

This Republican thinks he's senile. I appreciate him going to bat for Bush but he sounded like a nut doing it.

But he makes a great target for an occasional Saturday Night Live skit.

 

[rraley]

Funny as hell, though And almost as good as him wanting to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel

This Republican thinks he's senile. I appreciate him going to bat for Bush but he sounded like a nut doing it.

Thank you vrai...I was gonna say it but feared a heavy, heavy dosage of wtf's from everyone else.

My problem with Miller is not what he's saying, but how. Plus it seems wierd how he had such a sudden, drastic change of heart. Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore....George W. Bush?!

 

[Bruzilla]

This Republican thinks he's senile. I appreciate him going to bat for Bush but he sounded like a nut doing it.

That's an interesting critique. What did he say that you found nutty?

 

[SamSpade]

That's an interesting critique. What did he say that you found nutty?

Probably the 'pea-shooter' remark.

 

[Railroad]

I just ordered the book.

 

[sleuth]

Funny as hell, though And almost as good as him wanting to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel

This Republican thinks he's senile. I appreciate him going to bat for Bush but he sounded like a nut doing it.

I was nearly floored by his RNC speech... then I stood up in my living room and gave him a standing ovation!

 

[SamSpade]

Aside from the politics - the book seems to be a non-partisan comment on American society, in general. Is he right? Is there a deficit of decency, and how did we get here in one generation? TV? Pop culture?

I don't think 'religion' - or the lack of it - has had any effect. Or prayer in schools. Or churches' relevance in culture. Because, whether we like it or not, huge portions of our nation have, through the generations, failed to fully embrace religion with anything much more than lip service. For us to acquire a deficit of decency so quickly has to have some other basis.

Personally, I think some blame is on the pop culture. At least since I was a kid, movies, TV, Hollywood, the news do seem to have been more brazen. The top news stories are slightly embellished tabloid journalism, most of the time. At one time, TV characters who were over the top usually got their comeuppance by the time the credits rolled. We now have a lot more outrageous figures in our pop culture who seem to give approval to things that a generation or so ago would have shocked us. I'm not sure this is progress; I've always detested holier than thou prudeness - but the cycle of history is always that civilizations decay morally before they ultimately collapse.

Maybe I should read Zell's book.

 

[Railroad]

I'm not sure this is progress; I've always detested holier than thou prudeness - but the cycle of history is always that civilizations decay morally before they ultimately collapse.

Maybe I should read Zell's book.

Well said! Good thinking.

I contend that the decay of decency has in fact been partly the result of getting away from a more religious society. But only partly. I think pop culture is part of it as well, and some would say that the Supreme Court has a role in this as well (I've not studied that deeply and can't comment). I believe the decline has been going on for a long time, but that it's been gathering speed (at an alarming rate) in the last few decades.

 

[vraiblonde]

Two good reads that explore our moral decline:

"Slouching Toward Gomorrah" by Robert Bork

"The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce

That's an interesting critique. What did he say that you found nutty?

It's not so much what he said as how he delivered it. If you read the text of his RNC speech, it's very succinct and right on target. But his delivery was that of a ranting old man. His subsequent interviews were over the top as well. I mean, personally, I'd like to challenge Chris Matthew to a duel as well - and maybe punch him in the nose for good measure - but you just don't say things like that and expect people to take you seriously.

 

[tomchamp]

Part 1..could not fit it all in one post!

The remarks by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia at the Republican National Convention:

MILLER: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Since I last stood...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you very much.

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller family has been born: four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family, also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask: Which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

(APPLAUSE)

MILLER: The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

(APPLAUSE)

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future, and that man's name is George W. Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy man across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in a speech that summer, told America, "All private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee. And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

MILLER: And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

(APPLAUSE)

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

(APPLAUSE)

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

(APPLAUSE)

Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

(APPLAUSE)

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny. It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter.

MILLER: But not today.

(APPLAUSE)

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

(APPLAUSE)

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

(APPLAUSE)

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.

(APPLAUSE)

And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

(APPLAUSE)

MILLER: It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

(APPLAUSE)

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

(APPLAUSE)

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

(APPLAUSE)

 

[tomchamp]

Part 2

No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

(APPLAUSE)

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

MILLER: It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking.

They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

And no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

(APPLAUSE)

Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

But Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

MILLER: The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down

Gadhafi's Libyan MiGs over the Gulf of Sidra.

(APPLAUSE)

The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

(APPLAUSE)

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War.

(APPLAUSE)

The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's capital and this very city after 9/11.

(APPLAUSE)

I could go on and on and on -- against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?

(APPLAUSE)

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than 20 weeks of campaign rhetoric.

MILLER: Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

(APPLAUSE)

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

(APPLAUSE)

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

(APPLAUSE)

MILLER: As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away.

AUDIENCE: Boooooo.

MILLER: George W. Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. President Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. President Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists, no matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

(APPLAUSE)

George W. Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

MILLER: I first got to know George W. Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters...

(APPLAUSE)

... and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

(APPLAUSE)

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace" -- "was blind, but now I see." And I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

(APPLAUSE)

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter. And where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

(APPLAUSE)

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel...

(APPLAUSE)

... the man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

(APPLAUSE)

MILLER: This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is: How? The answer lies with each of us. And like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do. Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger, our president has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

God bless this great country. And God bless George W. Bush.

 

[Bruzilla]

I don't think 'religion' - or the lack of it - has had any effect. Or prayer in schools. Or churches' relevance in culture. Because, whether we like it or not, huge portions of our nation have, through the generations, failed to fully embrace religion with anything much more than lip service.

I think that we need to differentiate religion and moral standards. It's true that throughout our history the majority of Americans, and less and less each year, have truly embraced the standards of any religion. I remember my dad telling me about being a paper boy in the 1940s, and smelling the smell of roast beef coming from the rectory of the catholic church on a Friday, and getting a wink from the priest when he asked him about it.

But many of the morals and expectations of behavior sanctified by religions were deeply embraced by many Americans up until only a few decades ago. I can't recall ever hearing a prayer in school growing up in the 60s and 70s, but I never heard cursing either. Words that can be worn on clothes to most schools today couldn't even be spoken back then. There were strict dress codes at the public school I went to, along with a liberal corporal punishment rule (as I learned about more times than I care to mention.) TV and movies were highly monitored and offensive language and scenes were kept off the air. This was back when people didn't have to be told what was decent or indecent by a court... they knew. Back then disputes were worked out behind the house or school, not by mediators and lawyers. Back then an accident was an unintentional event, not an opportunity to make money. My family only went to church on occasion, and I was never encouraged to go, but we lived our lives by the Ten Commandments... those rules that so many people today want to hide away.

I think that back then we had a great deal of community standards, not necessarily religious-centered but that focused on encouraging people to live their lives in a way that built the greatness of American society. Then came the 70s, and we moved to more of an "everybody has a right to do whatever they want" view and standards that were once in place to ensure decency became labled as "religious", and trounced as an attempt by religious zealots to "tell us how to live our own lives." And as a result the divorice rate skyrocketed, unwanted births skyrocketed, single-parent families skyrocketed, violence skyrocketed, crime skyrocketed, etc.

To me there just doesn't seem to be any moral or decency standard left in the United States, and everytime someone tries to fix that problem they get labled as a zealot and are trashed by the media, the Left, etc.

 

[alex]

I agree that there is a lack of moral character in much of society and religion is not the whole answer. For some it is and that is fine. I think the Golden Rule - Do on to others what you want them to do you, is better. This is what I keep trying to teach my kids and what I try to live by. Is it easy - no.

I also agree with Bruzilla about community standards. Now a days you seldom meet your neighbors. Either everyone is so busy or they just don't want to be bothered. They want to live and let live. They don't get involved with each other. I grew up in an area where if I did something wrong my neighbor would call me on it and my parents wouldn't even bat an eye. They would say I deserved it. Today, if you even call a parent about their kid's behavior you get verbally and sometimes physically attacked for picking on their little angel.

As for what is on TV, movies, etc. Parents have control over what their kids watch and don't watch. I think it has more to do with wanting to be their kid's friend and being liked by their kids than doing the hard job of being their parents. I see so many kids scheduled to the max with sports, clubs, etc. Mostly for two reasons - 1: parents don't want to say no to their kids and 2: they don't want to have to deal with them. It is easier to just shuttle them from school to soccer to music lessons, etc. then having to deal with homework and discipline.

 

[tomchamp]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/090104-25v.htm

 

[vraiblonde]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/090104-25v.htm

Whoever wrote that speech should get the Nobel Prize. And whoever's idea it was to have a Democrat deliver that keynote speech was a genius.

But Zell Miller is still a nut

 

[Bustem' Down]

As far as moral decency goes, I think it's not all to blame on pop culture. Some of ya'll who are older than me think about how your parents raised you. When I was younger I wasn't allowed to watch some television shows because they were getting more brazen. My parents were strict enough to deny me the Simpsons. It's just my opinion that the government and the entertainment industry are not there to teach moral decency. Too much now I see people watch r rated movies with gratuitous nudity with 10 year olds using the old tired excuse "it's not anthing worse than they learn from thier friends.". I wasn't allowed to see R rated movies until I moved out of the house or snuck away. The entertainment industry is a business and until we show a disintrest in the more graphic stuff, they will continue to push it out. We need to stop relying on daddy government and take putting moral dencency in our own homes.

 

[SamSpade]

My parents were strict enough to deny me the Simpsons.

Consider *my* perspective -- I was *30* when the Simpsons came out. I can't think of anything comparable when I was little.

It's just my opinion that the government and the entertainment industry are not there to teach moral decency.

I don't know anyone who thinks they *should*. The last thing I want is a bureacrat deciding how I should behave - or anyone else, for that matter.

I'm just bemoaning the fact that society has devolved to this point. This is a failing of our *culture*, not of our government. Many of the things that would have been shocking in our parents' generation are NOT because the government stopped it - it's because the people stopped it.

Too much now I see people watch r rated movies with gratuitous nudity with 10 year olds using the old tired excuse "it's not anthing worse than they learn from thier friends.".

Oddly enough, Hollywood is getting the message that family movies make the most money - over the last 15 years, movies like "The Incredibles", "Finding Nemo" and "Shrek 2" make a fortune, and significantly more than their R-rated counterparts. The biggest movies of all time are mostly rated no higher than PG-13 (the lone "R" - "The Passion of the Christ", for obvious reasons). Sometimes, Hollywood gets the idea from the consumers.

We need to stop relying on daddy government and take putting moral dencency in our own homes.

I'm not sure where you're getting this argument from anyone on here. With the possible exception of the religious right, most conservatives don't think the government should intervene, either.