Cal Thomas on the Titanic

BELFAST, Northern Ireland -- Here, where Titanic, the massive White Star Line luxury liner, was built -- the joke for years has been, "It was fine when it left here." This year marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the ship "Not even God himself could sink...." and the centenary is being observed in diverse ways.
There are solemn remembrances. A "Requiem for the Lost Souls of the Titanic" is scheduled for St. Anne's Cathedral and there's a Titanic Commemoration Service and Unveiling of the Titanic Memorial Gardens at City Hall.
     Elsewhere, the government and entrepreneurs are seeking to make a profit. The Titanic Belfast visitor attraction opened March 31 and is sold out through April 16. MTV UK is staging a "Titanic Sounds" event, which it is billing as "the biggest party in the world." A party about a tragedy; how modern.
In America, where Titanic was headed when it sank April 15, 1912, about 960 miles northeast of New York City, James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster film "Titanic" is being re-released in 3-D. The film gives us the fictional romance between "Rose" and "Jack" and, as generally agreed, even by Cameron himself, a host of historical inaccuracies that may be all a generation of young people will learn about the ill-fated ship and its tragic maiden voyage.
     The 1953 film, "Titanic," starring Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck, also contained historical inaccuracies and fabricated scenarios, as did the 1958 film "A Night to Remember," another Hollywood interpretation of the tragic sinking.
The true story of the Titanic, however, is quite different and as far as I know has never been told in a feature film. In Cameron's version, he depicts the wealthy as asserting their privilege over third-class passengers and crew so they could escape in lifeboats not made available to all, a depiction that plays on issues of class warfare and social inequality.
     In many cases, the opposite was true, according to documented historical accounts that include real-life examples of rich passengers coming to the aid of the less fortunate. Writing in the March issue of the Christian publication, "Tabletalk," Dr. Harry L. Reeder, a Presbyterian minister in Birmingham, Ala., cites one such example of the selflessness of the rich and their sacrifices for the "lower classes." Dr. Reeder laments the missed opportunity by filmmakers to tell a far more dramatic and compelling story, the real story of the Titanic.
     Reeder muses on the "amazing event" chronicled in historical accounts, in which, "Men of power and prestige sacrificed their lives for women and children of the lower class, many of whom were indentured servants, day laborers and domestic workers.  On this flotilla of self-absorption, self-sacrifice became a prevailing virtue during a crisis moment, and the powerful chose death that the powerless might receive life."
     Reeder asks "Why?" and answers his own question: "the undeniable influence of Christianity.  The Christian virtue of self-sacrifice for the well-being of others and the biblical imperative for men to lay down their lives for women and children were chosen instead of self-preservation."
     In Titanic's demise, acts of self-sacrifice that shattered stereotypes about "the rich" were revealed.

Profile of Obama --- by Matt Patterson, Washington Post

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

 

Harry and Bess Truman

 

Sanibel Florida Sunset

 

Freddieplato, on the right, and Mrs. Freddieplato

 

Spring Into Action

 

Eliminate the Death Penalty

     People tend to be ambivalent about the death penalty.  The gruesome details of an execution, its ghoulish ritual and antiseptic thoroughness are revolting, yet every time we read about another heinous crime committed with the exquisite cruelty of some hellish monster it is almost impossible not to wish him to be put out of his misery and gone from this earth.

     Regardless of one's emotions either way, there are good reasons to eliminate the death penalty, and it should be remembered  that a criminal does not go free simply because he isn't killed.  Imprisonment for life, being regimented to the last detail as the decades drone on, is hardly a picnic.  Is that not really worse than death?

     The question whether the death penalty acts as a net deterrence to crime will probably always be debated  but one factor which is not always considered throws doubt on it.  As an execution can be delayed almost indefinitely with appeals, writs and whatnot, it does not appear imminent until near the end of the line.  John Wayne Gacy said on the way to his execution that he did not believe it would happen.  He had had so many delays and reprieves that final doom had become unreal.  Probably no one commits a crime with the expectation of being caught and executed.

     The greatest price we pay for the death penalty is the execution of innocent men, and sometimes women. (There is serious doubt to this day about the guilt of Barbara Graham, about whom the movie "I Want to Live" was made).  This is true not simply in some rare instance, but with horrifying frequency.  Not long ago in Illinois alone 13 men were released from death row on the strength of DNA evidence showing their innocence.  Since then that number has increased by seven.  Nationwide, since 1973, about 150 prisoners under the death sentence have been exonerated and released by virtue of DNA proof of innocence. There are probably many more who would be exonerated if the right steps to do so were to be taken.

     But DNA exoneration is not the whole of the matter. How many other innocent men are executed for crimes wherein DNA could neither prove nor disprove guilt?  For example, what would DNA have had to do with the terrible assassination of President Kennedy, when murder was committed with a rifle fired from a substantial distance from the victim?  There are almost certainly many  innocent men on death row who were convicted of crimes with no relevance to DNA.  And the guilty ones remain loose, free to work their murderous horors on new victims.  Just recently a mad man shot and severely wounded a member of Congress in Arizona and at this time she is in a hospital in critical condition, yet DNA would appear to be able to prove nothing in the matter one way or the other.   

     The death penalty certainly does deter the dead convict, but does it deter others who do not expect to be caught and therefore do not consider what might happen to them if they are?  Some statistics appear to show that the death penalty has little or no effect on the crime rate. 

     One effect of the death penalty is the refusal by countries around the world to extradite persons to the United States if they might face the death penalty. They should not be criticized for that.  Just as we have our social and legal policies, they have theirs.  But here, too, as in the cases of wrongful convictions, the guilty go free.

     Execution is brutal and cannot be made into anything less.  It puts life into the hands of sometimes corrupt and excessively ambitious prosecutors and, yes, sometimes even the police themselves, who have been known to withhold or even falsify evidence.  Add to that the defective work of some defense counsel.  When all the pros and cons are sifted out the death penalty should be eliminated.