Now, ole Theodore Roosevelt did say that, and it's a good 'un.  But if you was to dig in his drawers a bit, (winky at my dirty little such and such, ya'll), but if you did, you'd find some better zingers than that one to poke at all o' this politickin' and put things into perspective.

• The only time you really live fully is from thirty to sixty. The young are slaves to dreams; the old servants of regrets. Only the middle-aged have all their five senses in the keeping of their wits. - (Uh-oh!  JMac's 72!  That means he's in the regrettin' phase!)

• The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. - (That's so clear, it hurts your feelins', don't it?  Uh, 'scuse me, can I have "BS Bailouts" for $700 billion, Alex?)
  

• When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty." - (Eww chile, that one knocks both of those jokas out.  JMac and Mr. O-soon-to-be-P.  Guess we need to keep "checking their records."  Hmmm.)
  

• No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse. - (Oops!  I made a mistake and slipped this one in for G. W. Bushy.  That little thief.)
  

• A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. - (Woo woo!  How in the world did ole Teddy see into the future like that?  He musta had a crystal ball, or somethin'...Hmmm, it was just like it is today, then?  No way!  You must be jokin'.)
  

• A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. - (Have you registered yet?  Well, have you?)
  

• Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.  - (Don't that sound like one o' those commissions ole JMac was harpin' on about during the debate?  Make you wonder.)
  

• Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage. - (It's the same for a lady too, Ms. P (psst Palin).  Remember, you ain't runnin' for President, girl - JMac, (you know, uh, your running mate?) - He's the one that's up for that job.)
  

• Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country. - (Dammit, I don't care if this is relevant to the debate tonight or not.  THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT!)
  

• If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month. - (This one is for those of ya'll who, like O-soon-to-be-P, can't wait to find Osama Bin Laden and bust a cap up-pa in his ass!)

Here's to a fight well fought and a victory well deserved.  May we all, oh please oh please, be blessed this night.  And may we wake to a world free of ignorance, hatred, greed, and deceit.

Remember...

The Revolution will be Caramelized.

Peace, ya'll.

Theodore Roosevelt advocated what he called “ the strenuous life”.  He understood that our time on earth is limited and that we should make the most of it.  Psalm 90:12 says, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.”  Theodore Roosevelt believed that verse and stated, “Leaders are those who make the most of every moment, of every opportunity, and of every available resource.” 

Theodore certainly practiced what he preached.  He, both physically and mentally, was constantly busy.   When Theodore Roosevelt was a boy, he was sickly and weak.  However, through consistent hard work, he grew into a strong and energetic man.  Roosevelt climbed mountains, hunted, fished, and fought in the Spanish-American War.  He even had a boxing ring set up in the White House and invited prizefighters to box a few rounds with him!  Physically, Theodore Roosevelt lead a strenuous life.

Mentally, Roosevelt was no different.  He had a voracious appetite for learning.  Most weeks Theodore Roosevelt read at least five books, more if he was not too busy.  This reading payed off.  His son Archie testified, “In one afternoon, I have heard him speak to the foremost Bible student of the world, a prominent ornithologist, an Asian diplomat, and a French general, all of whom agreed that Father knew more about the subjects in which they had specialized than they did.”  His was indeed a strenuous life.

Beyond a doubt, Theodore Roosevelt was a manly man.  He, perhaps better than any other man, captures the essence of Christian manliness.  Starting life weaker than most, he ended life having accomplished much more than most.  His life is an enduring example for use to follow.  Rise up O men of God and lead a strenuous life!

-TS

For a while a now I have been  wanting to do a blog about the credit crunch and now that time has finally come . The main theme of this blog is that the Republican party and anyone who wants to join the fray need to invoke the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt rather then that of Ronald Reagan the icon of the American Conservative movement .

The Cause of our Current Woes

During the 1980s and up until today the Free Market advocates that were lead by Reagan made a crucial miscalculation . What Reagan and co failed to understand was that the Free Market requires a degree of regulation to operate . This applies more to the issue of  monopoly's and/or Trust Busting but the issue does help to paint a useful background picture to current events .

The combination of the miscalculation described above and deregulation has allowed a consumer economy and over inflated housing market all to be build on bad credit . Sheer greed and to a certain extend affirmative action lead to banks and other financial institutions issuing loans to people who were in no position to pay them back in the first place . Once increased demand and rampant speculation drove the cost oil up any hope that the creditors had of evening breaking even on the credit they loaned vanished . To the Kiwi reader bear in mind that if the majority of our banks were American rather then Australian owned we would be in a lot of trouble right now.

The Fix

Clearly those who run banks and other financial institutions cant not be trusted to self regulate the market . A method of regulating the credit market that does not withhold credit from those who are or Will likely be able to pay it back must be found . In order to bring redundancy to wall Street some Major Trust Busting needs to take place . It is simply unacceptable that the collapse of a few company's can cause a domino effect that crashes the global economy .

I cant buy land and do nothing with it so why shouldn't the same apply to food and oil ?

I do not wish to take away from what Reagan accomplished in other areas but by invoking the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt we can have a genuine Free Market economy  that provides a platform where competition provides redundancy , lower prices and maybe even better service . We would also avoid a 19th century style boom or bust style economy.

Theodore Roosevelt most Enduring Legacy

In order to end this blog entry on a lighter note I am going to post a pic of the Roosevelt legacy that has most effected my life and the life of countless other children and Adults .

: A Teddy Bear Saluate to " Teddy " Roosevelt :

På 1920-talet letade man i Syd-Dakota efter lämpliga sätt att öka turisttillströmningen i staten. I akt och mening att nå detta mål, kontaktade man skulptören Gutzon Borglum och gav honom i uppdrag att skulptera in ett minnesmärke i Black Hills -bergen.
Tanken var att skapa ett monument som skulle vara representativt för de första 150 åren i den nordamerikanska historien . (Här avses förstås bara kolonisatörernas historia, inte de inföddas - indianerna).
Den 4 oktober 1927 påbörjades arbetet med Mount Rushmore med en stor byst av George Washington. Det tog 14 år att avsluta resten av minnesmärket, som (förutom George Washington) inkluderar presidenterna , Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt och Abraham Lincoln.
Skulpturerna är ungefärligen 18 meter höga. Över två miljoner besökare per år drar stenansiktena.

(Texten hämtad och översatt från Answers.com)
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om Mount Rushmore, Syd-Dakota, Skulpturer, Allmänbildning, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, 1927, Gutzon Borglum

When a President has died in office, it has often been quite early in his term. This has often made a big difference in American history.

This is the Texas Liberal Election Fact of the Day.

The first President to die in office, William Henry Harrison, expired just a month into his term. Harrison died in 1841. President Harrison, at 68 the oldest President to that point, was a Whig. His Vice President, John Tyler, was a representative of the Southern planter class picked to help balance the ticket and not in full agreement with the Whig mainstream. As President, Tyler pursued policies, such a veto of a national bank, that greatly distressed Whig leaders such as Henry Clay.

President Zachary Taylor passed on in 1850 after serving just 17 months of his term. He was succeeded by Millard Filmore. 

Abe Lincoln's (above)1865 assassination occurred just a month into his second term. His Vice President, Andrew Johnson (below), who had not been Lincoln's first term VP, had very different views than Lincoln on Reconstruction, and how the South and Southerners should be handled after the Civil War.

Here is a stark difference between the person elected President and the person elected Vice President. The United States got one month of a great President and just under four years of a terrible President. And black folks got a century of Jim Crow.  

James Garfield was shot in the first year of his term in 1881. He died a few months later. Garfield's successor, Chester Arthur, might well have been an improvement. President Arthur sought Civil Service reform and was surprisingly independeant despite a reputation as a machine politician.

William McKinley was shot and killed in the first year of his second term in 1901. McKinley's Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt, who like Andrew Johnson had not been the first term VP, was a very different man than McKinley.

Franklin Roosevelt was shot at in 1933 in the time between his election and inauguration. Roosevelt's Vice President-elect, John Nance Garner was far more conservative than F.D.R. You might never of had a New Deal if Garner had become President instead of Roosevelt.

Roosevelt would later die in the first weeks of his fourth term. Vice President Harry Truman who had not been VP in the first three F.D.R terms, took the White House and did a pretty good job.  

Also, Ronald Reagan was shot and seriously wounded in his first year as President in 1981.

Let's say you are less than a hardcore Republican, yet are still considering voting for 72 year old John McCain. American history shows us that you may feel you're voting for Mr. McCain, but that what you really may get is President Sarah Palin.

An Air Force B-2 bomber and US Navy fighter planes fly over three US Navy aircraft carrier strike groups. Enjoy this dynamic display of American power projection every day. Purchase the Valiant Shield poster, framed print, or 2009 calendar at The PatriArt Gallery. Or buy the Valiant Shield tee-shirt or souvenir beer stein at The Military Chest.

More than 5,000 Sailors departed their homeport Sept. 8 as USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), flagship of the Carrier Strike Group (TRCSG), left for a regularly-scheduled deployment to support maritime security operations.

The strike group's ships are prepared to conduct a variety of missions, including forward naval presence, maritime security operations, crisis response and theater support cooperation.

Roosevelt deploys with embarked Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 2, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8 and Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 22.

"Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group units have completed all requirements for deployment and are prepared to achieve any missions we will be tasked to execute on deployment in support of theater commanders," said Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe, commander, TRCSG.

The strike group recently completed a Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX), made up of more than 15,000 service members from six countries working together to advance the art of coalition operations, as well as learning to maximize the unique capabilities and strengths of each member of the combined force.

Roosevelt Commanding Officer, Capt. Ladd Wheeler, praised his crew for the work they did in preparation for the deployment. He said the ship is ready; the crew is well-trained, and everyone is excited to get a chance to implement their training during the deployment.

"We can all take great pride in the men and women we are sending forward to represent our country," said Wheeler. "They have each worked diligently to ensure that they are properly trained, and Theodore Roosevelt is prepared for a variety of missions we may encounter while on deployment."

Other TRCSG assets include the guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61); the guided missile destroyers USS The Sullivans (DDG 68), USS Mason (DDG 87) and USS Nitze (DDG 94); the attack submarine USS Springfield (SSN 761); and the fast combat support ship USNS Supply (T-AOE 3).

Monique Hilley (NNS)

Yesterday, we went to the used book store and I picked up a couple books in The Dresden Files, by Jim Butcher. Since Dan has been pondering how to cast the movie, I figured I should read them. I'm two chapters in on Storm Front and I'm loving it.

So in no particular order, here is what's in my Currently Reading pile:

Radically Transparent, by Andy Beal - Primer on online reputation management for brands, etc. To be fair, the Amazon faeries just delivered it to me. So I've got the preface done.

Made to Stick, by Chip Heath - Probably the best book I've ever read about making ideas sticky. Another branding book. I'm reading it again.

Mind of the Raven, by Bernd Heinrich - He's a biologist/naturalist who spent years studying ravens and their behavior. So far, it's very cool.

Interview with the Vampire, by Anne Rice - I know people go nutzo for this book, but I must be vampired out and just can't seem to get into it.

Sin in the Second City, by Karen Abbot - I'm going to get my PhD at some point and I'm trying to find a topic. This book covers the very famous Chicago brothel, the Everleigh Club, the dames we can thank for the slang tern "to get laid." Love the idea, but the writing is a bit atrocious, she's not good at the story hook and there's no thesis and she tries to be Erik Larson and it just doesn't work.

Plato and a Platypus Walk Into A Bar, by Thomas Cathcart - Explains major themes and ideas in philosophy through metaphorical jokes. I haven't started it yet, but it's been in this pile since June. Could be too much theory for my wee little mind these days.

America in the Gilded Age and America Ascendant, by Sean Dennis Cashman - Actual text books on America in the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, respectively. It's my quest for possible dissertation topics. I'll never read these cover to cover, I know.

So what will I finish? The Dresden Files. No doubt.

As John McCain´s running mate, she almost certainly is shaping up to be the only politician in either party to be an important vote draw for a presidential ticket - and not just a do-no-harm appendage - since Republican vice-presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt put ho- hum, top-of-the ticket William McKinley over the top in 1900.

That may have been the only time anyone had overturned the conventional wisdom that no one votes for vice president.

John F. Kennedy could not have won Texas and, therefore, the electoral vote in 1960 without Lyndon B. Johnson, according to popular wisdom. But that was a single-state effect.

Polls now confirm that Mrs. Palin´s appeal extends beyond regional, gender and even partisan bounds.

There are some objective and a lot of subjective reasons to make that case for Mrs. Palin being the ticket to the Oval Office for Mr. McCain, who was never the most popular politician in his own party or among its conservative base, which suddenly has come alive with enthusiasm over the elevation of Mrs. Palin.

Objectively, she certainly rates being called a sensation. More likely voters responded more positively to her nomination acceptance speech on Sept. 3 than they did to Mr. McCain´s the next night or to Barack Obama´s and Joseph R. Biden Jr.´s at the Democratic National Convention at the end of August.

Now, in mid-September, all evidence points to her building steam, not losing it.

"Where Palin may be having a real impact is with Republican enthusiasm," Gallup poll senior editor Lydia Saad told The Washington Times. "We saw that skyrocket right after the convention, and this has benefited McCain in terms of likely voters."

When Mr. McCain faked a pass to liberal independent Sen. Joe Lieberman for running mate and then handed the ball to Mrs. Palin - an evangelical well to the right of Mr. McCain on economic policy and no less a defense hawk - he bowled over the 168-member Republican National Committee, state party chairmen and elected national committeemen and women.

Enthralled with the choice of Mrs. Palin, the 140 or so members who initially did not back Mr. McCain for the nomination suddenly went from saying privately that at least he´s better than the alternative (Mr. Obama) to bursting with enthusiasm for the vice-presidential nominee (Mrs. Palin).

Religious conservatives, meeting privately in Minneapolis days before the Republican National Convention, similarly went from support for Mr. McCain based on a fear of an Obama-appointed federal judiciary to jumping for joy at the sudden opportunity to work overtime for the election of Mrs. Palin and her running mate. She, as far as they were concerned, is one of them.

Ditto for those conservative and Republican activists at the national convention whose special concerns focused on economic policy. While they tended to see Mr. McCain as iffy on taxes and oil drilling and a bit too green on the environment, they, too, embraced Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin as one of them.

Most national defense advocates of the foreign intervention persuasion were always pleased with Mr. McCain but found their pleasure doubled with Mrs. Palin, who has an Israeli flag in her governor´s office and said the United States would be wrong to second- guess whatever Israel does against Iran.

Now, two weeks after the Republican convention, there seems little question that Mrs. Palin is making a difference.

Gallup Poll Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport told The Times that his polling shows that "10 percent of McCain voters volunteer that they are voting for him because of Sarah Palin. Only 1 percent of Obama supporters volunteer that they are voting for Obama because of Joe Biden."

What´s most surprising is that Mrs. Palin, of all people, may have brought Mr. McCain the gift of a lifetime at exactly the right time - a surge in affection for him from independent voters, who hold the balance of power in almost every election.

"The six-point bounce in voter support [for Mr. McCain] spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40 percent pre-convention to 52 percent post-convention," Ms. Saad said in reporting her firm´s daily tracking. "By contrast, Democrats´ support for McCain rose five percentage points over the GOP convention period, from 9 percent to 14 percent, while Republicans´ already-high support stayed about the same."

What brings ear-to-ear smiles to Team McCain is that the surge of independents who now like the Arizona senator for president marks the first time since Gallup began tracking voters´ general-election preferences in March that the majority of independents have sided with Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama. Before that, Mr. McCain got no more than 48 percent of independents and Mr. Obama no more than 46 percent.

please continue reading: http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/index2.asp?id=1124496

The following are third party candidates for President who have carried a state in a Presidential Election since after the Civil War.   

This is part of the Texas Liberal Election Fact of the Day series.

1892---Populist candidate James Weaver of Iowa ( photo above) won Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada and North Dakota. Mr. Weaver won 8.5% of the entire vote. Democrat Grover Cleveland of New York won the election. 

1912---Bull Moose Theodore Roosevelt of New York carried California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Washington. Mr. Roosevelt was also the last third party candidate to finish ahead of a major party nominee. Incumbent President and Republican nominee William Howard Taft of Ohio finished third in 1912. Democrat Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey won the election. In 1912, Mr. Wilson won 42%, Mr. Roosevelt 27%, Mr. Taft 23 % and Socialist Eugene V. Debs of Indiana took 6%.

1924---Progressive Robert La Follette,Sr ( photo below) won his home state of Wisconsin. Mr. La Follette won 17% of the full national vote. Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts won the election.

1948---Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond of South Carolina carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Mr. Thurmond won 2.4% overall. He was not on most ballots outside the South. Harry Truman of Missouri won the election.

1968---George Wallace of Alabama won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. Mr. Wallace won 13% of the nationwide total. Richard Nixon of California won the election.

Winning a state in a Presidential election is hard to accomplish. Ross Perot was unable to do so in 1992 even while winning 19% of the vote. Third party candidates must have some of concentrated regional appeal, as did Mr. Weaver, Mr. Thurmond and Mr. Wallace. Or maybe they just have to be Theodore Roosevelt.

( I'd suggest Texas Liberal readers check out the links to Weaver, Debs and La Follette. They were progressive and interesting figures.)

No third party seems likely to win a state in 2008.

2.

Lady Nancy Astor

At a political meeting a heckler called out,” Say missus, how many toes are there on a pig’s foot?”
Came reply,”Take off your boots,man, and count for yourself.”
compiler:benny

She said, "Four of the last presidents have been governors, and they have come in, every one of them, without an in-depth foreign policy experience."  Hutchison suggested that Palin reads the newspapers and knows as much as the average governor about foreign policy, but doesn't need significant knowledge in foreign affairs.

Hutchison challenged:  "Name one governor who has become president who has had in-depth foreign policy experience."

It pains me when public officials demonstrate such a vast lack of knowledge about American history.  Because you're from Texas, Sen. Hutchison, let me give you the facts, so you can avoid gaffes in the future.

1.  Thomas Jefferson, former governor of Virginia, assumed the presidency after having served as the American Ambassador to France, after extensive travels through Europe specifically to study government and foreign affairs, and after having served as both Secretary of State to George Washington, and vice president to John Adams.  If we ignore Jefferson's service after his governorship, we would note that he read fluently in both Greek and Latin before he was 20, and had read extensively of the histories of Rome, Greece, France, Britain and the rest of Europe.  By the time he assumed the presidency he had added fluent French, passing Italian, and Hebrew to his catalog of languages.

Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican (the first of that party), the party that is today known as the Democratic Party.  Perhaps Sen. Hutchison is party blind.

2.  Theodore Roosevelt -- you remember him, the guy with the glasses on Mt. Rushmore? -- came to the vice presidency in 1901from being governor of New York.  Prior to that he had been Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Navy, a post from which he wrote the book on naval power in the new age, for foreign affairs.  When the Spanish American War broke out, Roosevelt thought his desk job as head of the Navy too tame, so he created an elite corps of cavalrymen, recruiting almost equally from his old cowboy friends in the Dakotas and his Harvard friends, and insisted on service in the front lines.  His 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the "Rough Riders" were deployed to Cuba.  Coming under fire, they stormed San Juan Hill and pushed better-trained, veteran Spanish troops off, thereby winning the battle (Roosevelt was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for this action, though many years after his death).  Among the more interesting facts:  Their horses had not made it to Cuba; Roosevelt led the charge on foot.  He always was impatient.

Roosevelt's experience came in handy.  He was the guy who pushed the Japanese and Russians to a peace treaty, ending the Russo-Japanese War, in 1906.  Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Prize in Peace for this work (he's the only person ever to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor and been president, and the only Congressional Medal of Honor winner to win a Nobel Prize, and vice versa.  If we're making a case that one doesn't need foreign affairs experience to be vice president, for fairness, we should consider that vice president's with foreign affairs experience provide great advantages to the nation, and have advanced the cause of peace, and readiness.

New York City, the major city in New York, was in 1900 one of the world's greatest cities, a major trading center, and one of America's largest ports (Roosevelt had been police commissioner there, earlier).  The population of the city alone was 3,437,202.  The population of the entire state was 7,268,894.  Alaska's population today is about 670,000

3.  Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at the White House after four years as governor of New York. Like his cousin before him, Roosevelt had served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, during a period of frequent intervention in Central America and Caribbean nations.  It is reputed that FDR wrote the constitution imposed on Haiti in 1915.  In his Navy post, Roosevelt visited England and France, and made the acquaintance of Winston Churchill.  Roosevelt played a key role in the establishment of the Navy Reserve, and fought to keep the Navy from decommissioning after the end of World War I.  FDR came from a privileged family.  They made frequent trips to Europe, and by the time he was 18 FDR was conversant in both French and German.  A philatelist, his knowledge of the world's business and trade was rather legendary.

4.  Jimmy Carter graduated high in his class at the U.S. Naval Academy, where the required curriculum includes extensive instruction in foreign affairs.  He was chosen by Adm. Hyman Rickover for the elite nuclear submarine corps.  As Georgia's governor, Carter was elected to the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-governmental group whose intention is to create knowledge about foreign relations in the U.S. in order to aid in defense and trade, and the Trilateral Commission, a group founded on the idea that trade between the U.S., Japan and Europe can be a basis for improving international relations and trade.

5. Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown University with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (BSFS), from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.  Phi Beta Kappa, he won a Rhodes Scholarship, designed to pick from the next generation of great leaders, and got a degree in government in his studies at University College, Oxford.  He also traveled Europe during that time.

Hutchison's point may apply to two Republican governors who won the White House, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  They brought other gifts, but their lack of foreign policy experience nearly led to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in Reagan's first term, and Bush's lack of foreign policy knowledge probably led to the unfortunate invasion of Iraq, which has led our nation too close to the brink of national calamity.

And for good measure, let's list this guy at #6:  Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico, has a sound reputation in international relations, as a former Secretary of Energy, and former U.S. Ambassodor to the United Nations.  Among other things, Richardson talked the North Koreans into shutting down their nuclear bomb plans and operations in 1994.  When the Bush administration squirreled that deal, it was Bill Richardson again who stepped in (at the request of the North Koreans -- they trust him), and got them to agree to back off the most recent bomb plans and development.  "Richardson has been recognized for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen, and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba."  In 14 years as a congressman representing New Mexico, Richardson "visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests."  He previously staffed the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate, and worked for Henry Kissinger's State Department in the Nixon Administration.

Contrary to Hutchison's claim, of the four "recent" governors to gain the White House, two (both Democrats) had foreign relations education or experience far beyond that of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, and at least three other governors brought extensive foreign relations experience with them; one other has foreign relations experience a Secretary of State might envy.

Those are the facts.

Sen. Hutchison:  Can you earmark about $200,000 for education in foreign affairs for Dallas high schools?  Perhaps you can see, now, that experience and education in foreign affairs is useful for high office.  My students will be seeking those offices sooner than we may expect.

I wouldn't want them wandering the world thinking lack of knowledge about foreign affairs is a good thing.

Update:  Calvin Coolidge was governor of Massachusetts before being elected to the vice presidency on a ticket with Warren G. Harding.  Coolidge's foreign relations experience could be said to be lacking.  However, Coolidge's experience as a mayor and governor differed greatly from Palin's:

[From Wikipedia's entry on Coolidge] Instead of vying for another term in the state house, Coolidge returned home to his growing family and ran for mayor of Northampton when the incumbent Democrat retired. He was well-liked in the town, and defeated his challenger by a vote of 1,597 to 1,409.^[29] During his first term (1910 to 1911), he increased teachers' salaries and retired some of the city's debt while still managing to effect a slight tax decrease.^[30] He was renominated in 1911, and defeated the same opponent by a slightly larger margin.^[31]

And, later:

Coolidge was unopposed for the Republican nomination for Governor of Massachusetts in 1918. He and his running mate, Channing Cox, a Boston lawyer and Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, ran on the previous administration's record: fiscal conservatism, a vague opposition to Prohibition, support for women's suffrage, and support for American involvement in the First World War.^[49] The issue of the war proved divisive, especially among Irish- and German-Americans.^[50] Coolidge was elected by a margin of 16,773 votes over his opponent, Richard H. Long, in the smallest margin of victory of any of his state-wide campaigns.^[51]

*   *   *   *   *   *

By the time Coolidge was inaugurated on January 1, 1919 the First World War had ended, and Coolidge pushed the legislature to give a $100 bonus to Massachusetts veterans. He also signed a bill reducing the work week for women and children from fifty-four hours to forty-eight, saying "we must humanize the industry, or the system will break down."^[65] He signed into law a budget that kept the tax rates the same, while trimming four million dollars from expenditures, thus allowing the state to retire some of its debt.^[66]

Update:  Lisa has a series of interesting posts on presidents and their executive experience, at As If You Care.

"I-have-gall" (not "I got Gaul") update:  Some clown actually compared Palin to Roosevelt in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, according to Snopes.com.  Snopes's response was much kinder, and less flattering to Roosevelt, than I would have been.  WSJ left off the San Juan Hill episode, the Medal of Honor, and the Nobel Peace Prize (though he won that for his actions as president).

How to be a good president

Barack Obama says the most important quality is vision for the future. No, says John McCain, the key requirement is experience - or at least that's what he said until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

A former film star, Ronald Reagan was an excellent communicator

Both want the most powerful job in the world - but neither they, nor anyone else, can agree on what, precisely, are the qualities needed to serve as president of the United States.

Indeed, there is not even a job description - only an oath of office demanding the president defend the US constitution.

What's more, the job keeps changing, evolving constantly in the 230 years since the founding of the republic.

Still, an understanding has gradually emerged of the key qualities required of a president.

The trouble is, they are so many and various, it's almost impossible to imagine any normal human being matching up.

Preacher and protector

Ever since Theodore Roosevelt described the presidency as a "bully pulpit," Americans have expected first-class rhetorical skills from their leaders.

Mr Obama's camp hopes to capitalise on Bill Clinton's lasting popularity

A president must be able to inspire, to preach, to stir the American people to greater things.

In the modern era, Roosevelt, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all had a great talent for communication; so too did Bill Clinton, though in a different style.

The presidents who have struggled - both George Bushes and Jimmy Carter come to mind - were those who lacked oratorical gifts.

But the job requires more than that. Americans look to their president as a protector, someone who will keep the country strong and ward off its enemies.

Roosevelt was a great war leader. As the former Allied commander during World War II, Dwight Eisenhower made Americans feel similarly secure.

Rightly or wrongly, Americans still revere Reagan for winning the Cold War.

Minimum mendacity

Foreign policy acumen is a related and essential element in the presidential kit of parts.

Nixon and John McCain could both claim foreign policy expertise

It's why Mr McCain makes so much of his own experience in international affairs - and why the Obama camp equally emphasizes Sarah Palin's lack of a foreign policy record.

The first George Bush's reputation rests on his skillful handling of the post-Cold War world, while his son will have to persuade future historians that he did not make terrible blunders abroad.

Yet skill on the world stage is not enough to guarantee the respect of posterity.

Richard Nixon regarded himself as a geo-strategic sage, thanks to his opening to China, but he is still known by a single word: Watergate.

Domestic scandal trumps international accomplishments. Put that down as another lesson for those keen to learn how to be a good president: you need to be, if not saint-like in your honesty, at least not so mendacious that you get tangled up in your own deceptions.

It helps if you're someone who can get things done. Lyndon Johnson will forever be saddled with the disaster of the Vietnam war, but he retains respect for passing a canon of social legislation - from civil rights to his war on poverty - that genuinely improved millions of lives.

Jimmy Carter was seen as a decent but aloof president

That was largely down to his mastery of the often arcane ways of the senate, which he had once dominated as majority leader.

That hard-headed, practical ability to get results is often underestimated.

In the words of British journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Johnson "pushed through so much legislation which has changed the way we think about equality, equal rights and human dignity, and I think that is a huge accolade".

Star quality

It's good if you're a palpably decent man, as Jimmy Carter was - but less good if that makes you seem lofty, prissy or aloof, as Carter often seemed.

It's good if you can keep the country at peace and the economy in rosy health - as Bill Clinton did - but less good if you let that get overshadowed by personal indiscipline, as he did.

Finally, in the modern era, the president needs a compelling personal story, great charisma and as much screen presence as a movie star.

As I discovered making "President Hollywood", the demands of Washington DC and Tinsel Town are remarkably similar.

Which man matches up to this impossible checklist, Barack Obama or John McCain? Well, the American people will decide that on 4 November.

But they had better get used to one thing right away: the president with every one of these essential qualities simply does not exist.

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."- Theodore Roosevelt

• is young (under 45)
• has a reputation as a Republican Reformer
• has taken on Republican Party Establishment
• has a large family with many children
• is a lover of outdoor sports
• is a Hunter
• was chosen as VP Candidate with less than 2 years experience as Governor

While this describes Sarah Palin, it also describes Teddy Roosevelt.  Roosevelt was Vice President for one year when William McKinley died.  Yet with a similar resume to Palin's, he became one of the most influential Presidents in American history.  Leadership is not about any kind of Government experience, it's about having the right ideals and philosophy, and having those intangible characteristics to lead.  Truth is, one can never be sure who will be a good or great President and who will be a disappointment, but it is ideology and worldview that help give the best indication.  President George H.W. Bush was probably one of the most qualified presidents in history, but he did not perform in a way that made him one of the greats.  Lincoln was probably one of the more "unqualified" men to ever occupy the White House, but was arguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, President.  Palin's Washington "experience" may not match that of Biden and McCain's, but she has the right ideology, and at least so far, she appears to exhibit that intangible leadership quality that can effect real change in government. 

(The above bullet points are a paraphrase of an item that is all over the Internet in various forms).

A Teddy named Roosevelt, a Roosevelt in a Teddy

A writer-pal of mine wrote today, this ninth day of September 2008, less than two months before what may be the beginning of the very end of what remains of the United States of America, that his head has been spinning ever since he heard Cindy McCain endorse Sarah Palin as a "hockey-momming, basketball-shooting, moose-hunting, salmon-fishing, pistol-packing mother of five." This friend of mine, perhaps like many left to moderate friends of mine, voiced his concern that the facts of Sarah Palin are ever-increasingly being ignored, avoided, or whitewashed. Perhaps it goes without saying that this Palin-fear is an ever-growing sentiment amoung young left-to-moderate Obama supporters and quite possibly well-justified. It hasn't taken those of us born during or after the Vietnam War many years to see promising Democratic presidential campaigns fail utterly. We have seen failure before and know what it looks like from far away just as well as we know the shape of the dastardly tactics and Machiavellian brilliance of the Republican campaign machine.

Yes, that brilliance, cunning, shameless, calculating brilliance. The Cindy McCain introduction of Sarah Palin was brilliant. Sarah Palin is forever cast and projected in the psyches of American "folks" as a female Teddy Roosevelt. With an image like that, few voters with available votes will care about any factual information about her whatsoever, compelled instead by the seductiveness of that image. (It's the same image that motivated so many to buy SUVs that would never touch an unpaved road.) These potential voters won't care that Palin as in cahoots with one of the most corrupt senators in history. That she was in on the bridge to nowhere deal. That as Mayor of Wasilla she actually hired lobbyists to represent her town in DC in order to gain earmarks. That she wants to ban important books. That she says the war in Iraq is heaven-sent. That she thinks global warming does not exist. That she defends the Alaskan's right to shoot large animals from aircraft. That she tells people high oil prices are a result of short supply (they're not) and that pumping it out of the Arctic will lower those prices (impossible). That she supported or perhaps still supports Alaskan secession. None of that matters to those voters.

With Sarah Palin, the mirror neurons driving identification and Viagra boners driving, well, you know what, are all fired up. *That's* the base she fired up, friends. There are a lot of fence-sitting men and women who'd like to feast their bored eyes on her and/or live vicariously through her. To the American man and woman watching her, Sarah Palin seems rife with adventure and sexual possibility, an image that by its mere appearance suggests such a possibility into the fat-assed ogling her. Palin's a dumb babe with a cuckolded husband and a predilection for the executive golfing set. There are a lot of men who find that hot and a lot of women who want to be her. A lot, meaning, by the tens of millions. And each has a vote. And most of them are white, and many of them are looking for an excuse not to vote for an intellectual or a minority, their distrust so deep-seated beyond any reach of awareness whatsoever. But beyond that these Americans stimulated by Palin are a broken and scared people without much money, undereducated by an underfunded school system, paying resentfully into a tax system that funnels the money to the friends of Republican masters who keep wars alive through television spectacles and religion-tinged fear-mongering. Having been captive so long, these Americans, perhaps unsurprisingly enough, apparently feel they need to prescribe some more discipline to themselves through the McCain/Palin ticket (McPain? raising Cain?), as if long work weeks and no safety net, not even one for healthcare, is somehow fair, as if they deserve nothing better, as if they have earned no chance of hope whatsoever.

With Sarah Palin, the Simulacrum may achieve a level of perfection that seems poised to make Baudrillard's "hyperreal" perfectly and irreversibly true while simultaneously accelerating our collective descent into the dystopian vision of Mike Judge's "Idiocracy." There is no nature, only Sarah Palin blasting her way through it, a baby in one arm, bluetooth to her ear, all the while dollars flowing into her account. And that last fact only thrills the few of those idiots just smart enough to catch a whiff of it.

This election comes down to whether Americans want to enjoy success, whether they want to taste it themselves, or whether they're dumb enough to settle for living another's success vicariously, whether watching another enjoy luxury on TV is enough. This seems to be the American moment of the hyperreal. Is there a reality? I guess we will learn in November.

There's only one solution and unfortunately that is whether Obama gets tough. Will Barack Obama show that he is strong, that he can kick ass? (OK so many of the left get squeamish about that, but then, there's no danger of those people voting for McCain. They will either vote for Obama, vote for no one relevant, or not vote at all.) Such a display of strength from Obama could break down certain archetypes while, um, engorging others with an irresistible raging tide. He can use righteousness and outrage about the facts (of which there are countless) to display his alpha status. So the facts, perhaps as always, become a vehicle of justification for outrage.

Today George Bush took most of the air out of Obama's "anti"-war stance by authorizing a move of Iraq-deployed troops to Afghanistan. Therefore the issue of this year's election should be money and how people are pissed off and frightened by all of their money disappearing into the pockets of the kleptocratic bush-McCain axis. How we've been ripped off for eight years and how McCain will continue the shakedown. The facts used to display outrage and strength should be about gas prices, declining wages, lost pensions, soldiers being denied medical benefits or being unemployed, people bankrupted by medical bills. It should be about how totalitarian China has just become the world's technological (and maybe even financial) leader ahead of the US while the US is mired in pointless and deadly wars. This collective message must be deployed as a series of images, images about how Obama will fight for the betrayed American dream, how he can kick ass when it comes to rescuing the American dream. The thunder of "change" has been stolen by the republicans. So it should be pointed out that they are at least very good at stealing. But Obama is the most *potent* candidate, clearly and unambiguously so, and that's how he can steal his own thunder right back.

And, hell, why not launch a swift boats campaign against McCain? Why are dirty tricks OK when they're deployed to further harm people but bad when they're used to help people? McCain after all was known as "POW Songbird." His military record is rife with nepotism and failure and plane crashes and unforced confessions and more medals and even more nepotism and even more failure. He suffered and let us mock no suffering. But what did he do after 20 hours of duty, five crashed planes, and 28 medals? He swiftly dumped his wife who barely survived a horrific auto accident because she gained weight and married the incredibly loaded hockey-mom-loving Barbie, er, Cindy. Hell, you could even argue that McCain lost the Vietnam war. It's not a *valid* argument and maybe not even a fair one but when has that ever mattered in an election? And when has the validity or fairness of an argument ever mattered less? It is the validity and fairness of the common American that is much more important.

So think about Sarah Palin as Teddy Roosevelt, even think of her in a teddy. But don't think about just how huge and virile and Denzel-like Barack Obama is. We all know Obama loves us. We get that. Just as we learned from Bill Clinton in 1992 that he could kick ass, we just need to learn that Obama is very strong, that he too can kick ass, that he can kick more ass than just McPain/Failin'.

~~

Patrick Herron is the author of The American Godwar Complex (2004, Blaze VOX; download full pdf) as well as the chapbooks, Man Eating Rice (Blaze VOX), and Three Poems (Gateway Songbooks). His poems and essays have appeared in journals such as Exquisite Corpse, Jacket, Talisman, Fulcrum, in the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, and in the anthology 100 Days (Barque Press).

At Duke University Herron serves as Research Analyst and Technologist for the Jenkins Chair where he studies innovation networks via the automated analysis of large document collections and teaches new media studies.

~~~~

]]> http://asifyoucare.wordpress.com/?p=305 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:27:14 +0000 Lisa http://asifyoucare.de.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/executive-experience-good-president-part-8/ Welcome to Part 8 of my ongoing series, does "executive experience" equate to a good president?  We've heard the GOP claim over and over that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama or Biden and that makes her more qualified to be president than either of them.  They never mention that, according to their argument, that means she is also more qualified than McCain, but let's not split hairs.  In my last post (and you can read all of them in the series by clicking on "Executive Experience: Is it Important?" above) I got up to the first term of Grover Cleveland, president #22.  Which means I'm about half done!  Yay!  I'll bet dollars to donuts someone else has already gone through this exercise in full and good for them.  I don't have the heart to Google and find out.  But I'm also finding it's a very subjective exercise, so even if a hundred people have done it, I'd bet they'd have a hundred variations on a result, depending on how they define executive experience, or how they judge the different presidencies, or how good they feel a president has to be to be "good", or how bad they have to be to be "bad".  When all is said and done I hope to have brought just a tiny bit of value to the whole discussion-at-large.  Anyway.... let's get on with it!

#23 -- Benjamin Harrison.  Harrison reached the rank of brigadier general during the Civil War, and served in the U.S. Senate for six years, but by my definition no executive experience.  As an odd tidbit of trivia, Harrison was the last bearded president we've had.  Harrison's presidency offers a dichotomy of success and failure.  He made a number of foreign relations successes during his presidency, setting in motion the U.S.'s backing of the Panama Canal, the annexation of Hawaii, setting up Samoa as a protectorate are among his foreign policy actions that did more in the late 18th century to push America toward its superpower status in the world.  On the other hand, he was, at best, a mediocre domestic policy president, pushing forth a number of decisions that helped bring along the depression of 1893, the worst in the nation's history to that point.  He was seemingly completely unaware of the strife facing the poorest Americans.  Though, on the other hand, he did focus energy on resource conservation and the rights of African-Americans, more so than other presidents of the era.  I really could go either way here... was he good enough to be "good"?  The Miller Center of the University of Virginia certainly seems to think he did more good than bad, and since they are cited all over the Internet for president stuff, and have also been an invaluable reference for me as I've gone through this process, I will side with them.  So... EE: no; Good: yes.

#24 -- Grover Cleveland, again.  I covered him already, and he's not getting two votes.  Nyah nyah, Grover.

#25 -- William McKinley.  McKinley served a long time in the US House of Representatives, and was also the governor of Ohio for a few years.  So he's got that executive experience.  For a long time, McKinley was viewed as a mediocre president at best, manipulated to the will of his party and who were thought to be his handlers.  More modern historians seem to concur, however, that this was very far from the truth.  He was a savvy, decisive man who packed a whole lot of success into his presidency, before he was shot at the Pan-American Exposition in my hometown, Buffalo, NY.  His most resounding success was the Spanish-American War.  He tried to avoid the war, but when entering into it became inevitable, he helped direct it with modern technology (telegraph and telephone, the first president to use these during wartime) and the U.S. won decisively against a European superpower in a quick 113 days.   So... EE: yes; Good: yes.

#26 -- Theodore Roosevelt.  Among his many life pursuits (naturalist, historian, etc.) he also had a successful military career, and served two years as the governor of NY.  Teddy Roosevelt's presidency is one of great accomplishment.  He singlehandedly revolutionized America's stance and approach to foreign affairs, and was truly the first 'modern' president, turning the tide of power in government from the Senate to the Oval Office.  He introduced social programs and conservation efforts, embraced a belief in reining in big business, oversaw the construction of the Panama Canal, and negotiated a peace between Japan and Russia (earning him the Nobel Peace Prize) and then later a peace between France and Germany over a conflict regarding Morocco.  He may have helped avert a world war with these two actions.  He was a pretty cool dude, overall.  So... EE: yes; Good: yes.

#27 -- William Taft.  The only experience on Taft's resume that lends itself to "executive" experience is territorial governorship.  He was a governor of the Phillipines for a couple years after the U.S. acquired it as part of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War, and also served as a governor of Cuba for a couple months while it was under US control.  I guess I'll give him credit for it.  So now onto his presidency.  It seems, for all intents and purposes, Taft's presidency was pretty much characterized by its lack of anything substantial that was accomplished.  Part of the problem was Taft's personality; he was a thoughtful, ponderous man who really relished weighing all sides of an argument (his life's ambition was not the Presidency, but rather to be a Supreme Court justice, to which he was appointed after his presidency).  He was rarely decisive, took little initiative, and was not a strong leader in general.  On top of that, the man was a frigging glutton.  He would eat something like a dozen eggs and a pound of bacon for breakfast, rendering him quite slothlike through the first part of the day.  Hard to take initiative when you can barely summon the energy to digest breakfast.  So... EE: yes; Good: no.

#28 -- Woodrow Wilson.  He served as the president of Princeton University and the governor of New Jersey - either would get him credit for executive experience, in my book.  As far as his presidency, I'm doing a bunch of reading and really having a hard time nailing it down.  On one hand, his ideals and influence carry forward even today.  Wilson had a vision of world peace and security, where the U.S. would lead in being ambassadors of democracy and freedom to all nations of the world -- sound like a recent justification for a very costly war?  But you can't fault the dream behind it, it's really quite noble.  He was certainly influential and historic for his ideas and philosophies.  But he was also idealistic, and functioned and based decisions on how he perceived the world should be, versus how it actually was.  A number of these decisions, if based more in the reality of a situation instead of his ideals for what it should be, probably could have kept the U.S. out of World War I.  And, for all his talk about justice and freedom, these ideals were not extended to African-Americans.  Wilson condoned and even encouraged segregation and race rioting reached a fever pitch during his administration.  (As president of Princeton, he discouraged African-Americans from applying; Princeton did not admit its first black students until the 40s.)  I'm still sort of stuck ... do I give him a positive nod for his presidency because of the influence his ideals had on nearly every future president?  Or do I give him the big thumbs-down because of the things he did (like get us into WWI) and didn't do (like, anything, to stop violence against black people).  I seriously cannot decide, so I will defer to the historical ranking of United States presidents on Wikipedia, which presents a tabulated collection of a bunch of different surveys of historians asking who were the greatest presidents.  Wilson regularly makes the top 10 on most surveys... so I will thus concede this point.  So... EE: yes; Good: yes.

OK, that gets me through the Progressive Era.  Up next, Great Depression!  Good times!

My opinion? So what?

Why do I say that? Several reasons.

Harry Truman. Truman was a county judge before being elected to the Senate in 1934. He was re-elected in 1940 and tapped to be vice-president in 1944. He took office soon after upon the death of FDR. Not much experience.

Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln served one term in the House and was out of office until elected president in 1860. Hardly any experience.

Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt served as Secretary of the Navy for a couple of years then was elected governor of New York in 1898. In 1900, he became William McKinley's running mate and ascended to the presidency a few months later upon McKinley's death.

Truman, Lincoln, Roosevelt. Not a bad trio of presidents. And not a whole lot of experience when they became president.

No one knows if Palin or Obama would be like these three if they should happen to become president. But they certainly have as much experience.

(Cross posted at Fairly Conservative).

Truth needs to be sought after. Those who lie and cheat will do all they can to hide the truth from the American people. Is that patriotism? Is keeping the people uninformed love of country? When turth and facts are hidden from the people who must make the important decision on who is most qualified to lead our country, is that putting country first?  McCain like Bush hides the truth and make up their own truths. McBush and company flip flop and tell you what THEY want you to believe.

Recently per the Huffington Post "on 'The Daily Show,' Jon Stewart hit Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly with damning evidence of their hypocrisy regarding Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.  While Rove recently praised Palin's experience as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Stewart showed video of Rove trashing Virginia Governor — and former Richmond Mayor — Tim Kaine's executive experience, listing all the cities that are bigger than Richmond and calling such a pick "political."

 The video of this episode is here on the Huffington Post or here at Comedy Central for those who want to view it. There is nothing funny about this video. It had been on you tube but has since been taken off the site. Once again, supression of truth wins, but those who seek truth will find it.

The McCain camp is keeping their starlet mascot from the news media not to protect her, but to supress how she would actually react to questions put forth by real Americans who want to be informed as to a person's charactor, judgement and knowledge. This fact alone puts into question the judgement, and competeancy of John McCain to lead our Country. Being president of the United States is the most important job in this country and the world for that matter and we need a person who is strong in charactor as well as who will not misslead us or the world.

More McBush truths can be found on the videos I posted below.

John McCain Will Bring Change

"More"

Peace

I recently created a list of supplemental readings for the science classes at my co-op. I can't say I have read them all, but I did try to choose something beyond the canned biography series when that was possible. The "5-7" and "8-10" categories apply specifically to what's being taught in the co-op classes, and not really to recommended age ranges for the books.

I would really love to hear any books that you have read and would recommend. Or, if you have read any of these and love or hate them, I'd love to hear that too. We have George's Secret Key to the Universe, which is not really Violet's cup of tea but she did read it all the way through. And if you've known my husband for a while you would not be surprised that we have a well-used copy of Journey to the Ants. (And sorry I don't have lovely Amazon links and photos -- Victoria has been sick for a few days now and I am way too overloaded!)

Semester One

Genetics and Health:

5-7
Mendel:
Gregor Mendel, The Friar Who Grew Peas, Cheryl Bardoe (2006)
Gregor Mendel: Father of Genetics, Roger Klare (1997)

8-10
Genetics and Geneticists:
Baa! The Most Interesting Book You'll Ever Read About Genes and Cloning, Cyntha Pratt Nicolson (2001)
Rosalind Franklin and the Structure of Life, Jane Polcovar (2006) [Watson & Crick's female partner who doesn't always get the attention she deserves as a pioneering female scientist!]
DNA pioneer: James Watson and the Double Helix, Joyce Baldwin (1994)
What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Francis Crick (1988) [for strong readers]
A Passion for Science, Lewis Wolpert and Alison Richard (1989) [includes an interview with Francis Crick]

The Physical World and Space
5-7
Stephen Hawking:
not much for younger children, but for older children or strong readers, try
George's Secret Key to the Universe, Stephen and Lucy Hawking (2007)
Stephen Hawking: Unlocking the Universe, Sheridan Simon (1991)

8-10
Physics:
Odd Boy Out, Don Brown (2004)
Astronauts:
Neil Armstrong: One Giant Leap for Mankind, Tara Dixon-Engel and Mike Jackson (2008)
Ellen Ochoa, First Latina Astronaut, Lila and Rick Guzman (2006) [the author has asked that I remove this book from the list, but has declined to explain why, so I guess, don't read this book?]
Neil, Buzz, and Mike Go to the Moon, Richard Hilliard (2005) [especially for younger readers]
Godspeed, John Glenn, Richard Hilliard (2006) [especially for younger readers]
Sally Ride, Elizabeth Raum (2006)
Reaching for the Moon, Buzz Aldrin (2005)
Mae Jemison: The First African American Woman in Space, Magdalena Alagna (2004)
Sally Ride and the New Astronauts: Scientists in Space, Karen O'Connor (1983)
Find Where the Wind Goes: Moments from My Life, Mae Jemison (2001)

Semester Two

Ecology and Earth:

5-7
E. O. Wilson and the Ants (not specifically about E. O. Wilson):
Life and Times of the Ant, Charles Micucci (2003)
Flute's Journey: The Life of a Wood Thrush (1997)
Ma Jiang and the Orange Ants, Barbara Ann Port (2000)

8-10
E. O. Wilson:
Science Giants: Life Science, Alan Ticotsky (2006)
Journey to the Ants: A Story of Scientific Exploration, Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson (1998) [Not a children's book, but a classic for adults that strong young readers might also love]
Ants and the Natural World:
the books listed for 5-7 would also be good for 8-10 year olds who still enjoy quality picture books
The Woods Scientist, Stephen Swinburne (2002)
You Are the Earth: Know the Planet so You Can Make it Better, David Suzuki (2000)

Living Things:

5-7
Roosevelt:
Young Teddy Roosevelt, Cheryl Harness (1998)
Theodore Roosevelt, Conservation President, Susan DeStefano (1993)
Theodore Roosevelt: Naturalist/Statesmen, Joyce Blackburn (1967)

8-10
Audubon: The Boy Who Drew Birds, Jacqueline Davies (2004)
Audubon: Painter of Birds in the Wild Frontier, Jennifer Armstrong (2003)
Capturing Nature: The Writings and Art of John James Audubon (1993) [incorporates Audubon's words and writings]

p.s Great big tip o that hat to Nina, whose awesome list of beautiful books for older children reminded me to keep searching!

I suppose Valentine's Day would always be memorable, in a tragic sort of way.

And we think breakups are bad.

I am a little confused - much like John McCain.

I would have thought that being in politics you shouldn't give your political opponent an easy target as to what you had done in the past - not that this is possible in all cases. See Palin and her mayoralty of that town - she left it in debt - some good decisions she made there then!

But McCain - on the stumps repeating his speech of last night, goes on about bear DNA. OK - now I can understand that this would be a problem if you had a hoard of men with darts putting bears to sleep to take blood samples, basically because that is what John McCain is trying to paint in your mind. But because John McCain is either simple, stupid or just plain thick - we will have to judge when we look at the facts.

The DNA in Montana debarcle is about people collecting hair from barbed wire. That seems a bit odd, no? Well I would look at it as a bit odd - why on this God's Earth would someone walk around the wilderness collecting hair? Stupid you would say?

Erm...well no!

Why?

Because the grizzly bear is an endangered species. This is an environmental issue about whether they should be taken off the endangered list or not. The DNA, simply put, means that the scientists can say how many there are, which sex they are and how wide-ranging they are. And Montana is big! The money that was ear-marked, in this case a good thing - means that an act of Congress, you know laws and the like - can be run efficiently. Isn't that what John McCain wants? A more efficient government? Obviously not. He would - without consultation veto that money, and make the office of president look more moronic than Bush does now!

Senator John McCain loves to present himself as a fighter against waste and pork-barrel spending. His fusillades against the “bridge to nowhere” (Sarah Palin voted FOR this at first) in Alaska and other such projects were well justified. But his jabs at a study of grizzly bears in Montana are way off the mark.

A report by Joel Achenbach in The Washington Post makes clear, however, that this was not really a study of bear DNA but a study that used bear DNA to determine whether the grizzly bear was still a threatened species or had rebounded. Mr. McCain and his staff either failed to realize that or chose to distort the facts for political effect. Either choice is not encouraging.

The presumed Republican presidential nominee also fails to mention that the project was sponsored by Conrad Burns, a former Republican senator from Montana who chairs the McCain campaign in that state. Mr. McCain never explains why, if it was such a waste, he didn’t try to curtail it on the Senate floor.

And why is John McCain, thick, stupid or simple?

He voted FOR this research.

McCain Misfires at Grizzlies - New York Times.