Friday, September 6, 2013

Great Speeches: Jeane Kirkpatrick - 1984 Republican National Convention

The message of Jeane Kirkpatrick's "Blame America First" speech are still relevant. Foreign policy cannot be an afterthought. Foreign policy cannot be uninformed.




For audio, visit today's post on The Eloquent Woman.

Full transcript: 

Thank you very much for that warm welcome.

Thank you for inviting me.

This is the first Republican Convention I have ever attended.

I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.

I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:

"The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details."

He continued:

"The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man."

That's the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.

These were the men who developed NATO, who developed the Marshall Plan, who devised the Alliance for Progress.

They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others.

They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.

They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.

I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach.

Foreign AffairsA recent article in The New York Times noted that "the foreign policy line that emerged from the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco is a distinct shift from the policies of such [Democratic] presidents as Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson."

I agree.

I shall speak tonight of foreign affairs even though the other party's convention barely touched the subject.

When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich - convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand.

Today, foreign policy is central to the security, to the freedom, to the prosperity, even to the survival of the United States.

And our strength, for which we make many sacrifices, is essential to the independence and freedom of our allies and our friends.

Ask yourself:

What would become of Europe if the United States withdrew?

What would become of Africa if Europe fell under Soviet domination?

What would become of Europe if the Middle East came under Soviet control?

What would become of Israel, if surrounded by Soviet client states?

What would become of Asia if the Philippines or Japan fell under Soviet domination?

What would become of Mexico if Central America became a Soviet satellite?

What then could the United States do?

These are questions the San Francisco Democrats have not answered. These are questions they haven't even asked.

Carter Administration
The United States cannot remain an open, democratic society if we are left alone - a garrison state in a hostile world.

We need independent nations with whom to trade, to consult and cooperate.

We need friends and allies with whom to share the pleasures and the protection of our civilization.

We cannot, therefore, be indifferent to the subversion of others' independence or to the development of new weapons by our adversaries or of new vulnerabilities by our friends.

The last Democratic administration did not seem to notice much, or care much or do much about these matters.

And at home and abroad, our country slid into real deep trouble.

North and South, East and West, our relations deteriorated.

The Carter administration's motives were good, but their policies were inadequate, uninformed and mistaken.

They made things worse, not better.

Those who had least, suffered most.

Poor countries grew poorer.

Rich countries grew poorer, too.

The United States grew weaker.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union grew stronger.

The Carter administration's unilateral "restraint" in developing and deploying weapon systems was accompanied by an unprecedented Soviet buildup, military and political.

The Soviets, working on the margins and through the loopholes of SALT I, developed missiles of stunning speed and accuracy and targeted the cities of our friends in Europe.

They produced weapons capable of wiping out our land-based missiles.

And then, feeling strong, the Soviet leaders moved with boldness and skill to exploit their new advantages.

Facilities were completed in Cuba during those years that permit Soviet nuclear submarines to roam our coasts, that permit planes to fly reconnaissance missions over the eastern United States, and that permit Soviet electronic surveillance to monitor our telephone calls and our telegrams.

Those were the years the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran, while in Nicaragua and Sandanista developed a one-party dictatorship based on the Cuban model.

From the fall of Saigon in 1975 'til January 1981, Soviet influence expanded dramatically into Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Yemen, Libya, Syria, Aden, Congo, Madagascar, Seychelles, Nicaragua, and Grenada.

Soviet block forces and advisers sought to guarantee what they called the "irreversibility" of their newfound influence and to stimulate insurgencies in a dozen other places.

During this period, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, murdered its president and began a ghastly war against the Afghan people.

The American people were shocked by these events.

We were greatly surprised to learn of our diminished economic and military strength.

We were demoralized by the treatment of our hostages in Iran.

And we were outraged by harsh attacks on the United States in the United Nations.

As a result, we lost confidence in ourselves and in our government.

Jimmy Carter looked for an explanation for all these problems and thought he found it in the American people.

But the people knew better.

It wasn't malaise we suffered from; it was Jimmy Carter - and Walter Mondale.

Election of Ronald Reagan
And so, in 1980, the American people elected a very different president.

The election of Ronald Reagan marked an end to the dismal period of retreat and decline.

His inauguration, blessed by the simultaneous release of our hostages, signaled an end to the most humiliating episode in our national history.

The inauguration of President Reagan signaled a reaffirmation of historic American ideals.

Ronald Reagan brought to the presidency confidence in the American experience.

Confidence in the legitimacy and success of American institutions.

Confidence in the decency of the American people.

And confidence in the relevance of our experience to the rest of the world.

That confidence has proved contagious.

Our nation's subsequent recovery in domestic and foreign affairs, the restoration of military and economic strength has silenced the talk of inevitable American decline and reminded the world of the advantages of freedom.

President Reagan faced a stunning challenge and he met it.

In the 3 1/2 years since his inauguration, the United States has grown stronger, safer, more confident, and we are at peace.

The Reagan administration has restored the American economy.

It is restoring our military strength.

It has liberated the people of Grenada from terror and tyranny.

With NATO, it has installed missiles to defend the cities of Europe.

The Reagan administration has prevented the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations.

It has developed flexible new forms of international cooperation with which to deal with new threats to world order.

The Reagan administration has given more economic assistance to developing countries than any other administration or any other government, and has encouraged the economic freedom needed to promote self-sustaining economic growth.

The Reagan administration has helped to sustain democracy and encourage its development elsewhere.

And at each step of the way, the same people who were responsible for America's decline have insisted that the president's policies would fail.

They said we could never deploy missiles to protect Europe's cities.

But today Europe's cities enjoy that protection.

They said it would never be possible to hold an election in El Salvador because the people were too frightened and the country too disorganized.

But the people of El Salvador proved them wrong, and today President Napoleon Duarte has impressed the democratic world with his skillful, principled leadership.

They said we could not use America's strength to help others - Sudan, Chad, Central America, the Gulf states, the Caribbean nations - without being drawn into war.

But we have helped others resist Soviet, Libyan, Cuban subversion, and we are at peace.
Blame America First
They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.

But then, they always blame America first.

The American people know better.

They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States didn't cause Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression in Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or the new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.

The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.

They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.

He wrote: "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace.

And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House.

Thank you very much.

(Sources: This is the Associated Press text of United Nations Representative Jeane J. Kirkpatrick's speech as delivered Aug. 20 to the Republican National Convention, in Dallas.)

- See more at: http://www.america-the-exceptional.com/kirkpatrick.html#sthash.YGaHCWw8.dpuf

Thursday, August 29, 2013

This I believe

How is one supposed to decide what is right and what is wrong? Do we draw upon our own experiences, what our parents taught us growing up, learning from mistakes we've made in the past, learning from other's mistakes, etc. Are we allowed to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong? Or is it based on rules and regulations set up for us by the society we live in?

I believe in order to have an accurate view of ethics you need to be an observant person. Someone who is able to take in the environment around them, at any age/time period/culture, and apply a universal set of ethics to any situation.

What Americans believe to be basic human rights are not always considered so in other countries of the world. For example, discrimination based on gender and race is still a major influence on people's lives in third world countries, as well as in other places in the world. While in America women are able to vote freely, it is not uncommon for that right to be restricted to only males elsewhere in the world.
Is it proable to insist that there be a global set of ethics? Can we come together as human beings, even with differences in cultural values, language, government, and decide upon a basic idea of right and wrong? I don't see why not. While the definition of "right" can be subjective based on individual values and belief, there should still be a broader sense of "right and wrong" that can transcend to any person age, race, or gender.
I think back to my first 20 years in life and I try to define what I think is ethically correct, and I find it art to completely articulate my thoughts. How do you explain to someone what is right when they clearly object to your opinion? I may think that shaking someone's hand is the appropriate thing to do when being introduced to someone new, but in another country that might be regarded as disrespectful. 
I believe that with all of the problems we face in the world today: economical issues, international relations issues, education policy, health care, natural disasters, a person's issues can and should be related to other people in the world on some sort of general standard. I believe that we can come together, as a people, and work to attain a global definition of right and wrong, and stick to it. I especially think this is true in our current generation with the increase in connectivity world wide via social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, even things like email, news broadcasts, etc. It is easier now than it ever was for a person to connect to someone else in a completely different area of the world...so why shouldn't we come together and act as one society?

"My Ethical Standards Come From..."

So we all have those memories from being a kid where you do something wrong and you get punished by your parents. While trying to figure out what exactly I wanted to say in this entry I suddenly remembered something: The Oreo Incident. Growing up we kept treats (such as cookies) out of the reach of me and my brother in a cabinet above the microwave. It was well known that we were not to eat said treats unless granted permission. I remember one day I managed to get my hands on an Oreo or two, and of course I got caught. Instead of admitting to the crime I tried to weasel my way out of it. Naturally I was unsuccessful, and therefore had to learn the "lesson about lying".

While this may seem like a silly story, it proves that the lessons my parents taught me when I was younger have stuck with me even now. They helped lay the foundation for me to create my own set of standards off of. My parents taught me the basic lessons, kind of like "Ethics for Dummies", and then let me be free to make my own mistakes and learn other things for myself.

It's like anything in life: you learn best by experiencing something hands on. Your parents can tell you "lying to someone is wrong and will hurt the person you lie to" but you don't actually understand the meaning behind that until you witness it firsthand. Whether you are the person being lied to, or if you see the consequences of telling a lie yourself, the lesson is still the same.

I look at it like learning how to ride a bike. At first you start out with training wheels to get used to the bike. Then as you progress, your parents take off them off, and you have to readjust what you learned from the training wheels and apply that to your new situation. The lessons your parents teach you when you are younger are the training wheels for your own code of ethics, and as you go on living you apply them. This is how we go about creating our own set of standards.

While this may seem like an elementary level comparison I believe it shows how I've come about my ethical standards in the perfect way. Ethics don't need to be complex, they just need to be ethical. Since when did right and wrong become so complicated?

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Code of Ethics Excerpt


"I will remember to find joy in life in the every day moments. Daily smiles and appreciation of the little things will truly be the linking devices as I move forward on my path. While ambition is my priority, I also want to give myself time for my hobbies. I’ve never liked this feeling of how the older we get the more of ourselves we are forced to give up. As children we’re active with excess free time to read, write, and play. Throughout the years we’re urged to sacrifice one thing after the other in order to give more focused attention to ‘the important things’. Sooner or later we become adults with full time jobs that extend beyond the advertised 40-hour workweek. We give up dancing, we give up reading, and we forget to see the smiles in our days. Morale wavers until the day we wake up questioning every move before that point because suddenly we aren’t individuals anymore. I won’t give in to the pressures of giving up what makes me who I am. Whether making time for a dance class, going on a run, people watching on the metro, reading alone in a coffee shop, or working in a new travel experience, I will incorporate my personal interests to my busy schedule so I don’t wake up one day as the president of an international corporation with no personality or intrigue. A youthful sense of curiosity is healthy and shall remain in my essence as long as I live."

Friday, August 23, 2013

A Poem - HONY

From Humans of New York

She asked if I wanted to hear a poem she'd written when she was younger. (At what age, she couldn't remember) She then recited it from memory. I had her repeat it several times so I could get all the words right:

"Were I to dream,
then dream I would
of days that have gone by.

Your eyes would gleam
and so would mine,
but joys remembered are no longer mine.

I walk in a garden of memory,
reliving the joys and the sorrows as well.
I walk with a cane down memory lane,
perhaps there, joys remembered will remain.

Perhaps when my hair has turned to gray
and my face is etched with pain,
I'll walk with a cane down memory lane.
Perhaps there, joys remembered will remain."

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

“Missourian puts copy editors in charge of social networking”

By Damon Kiesow
2.28.20111 (For Penn State University Journalism class)
            I continue to be interested in the ways copy editors are adapting to the increased usage of online sources for newsgathering purposes. This article discusses one paper’s attempt at gearing the focus of copy editors to the new realm of social networking. For this paper, the student-run staff has refocused their attention and reevaluated their priorities from print to web. Their main focuses now are online presentation and engagement.
            The importance of this article is that it again points out that the most successful online news sources are the ones that understand the concept of being interactive with their readership. It also points out the importance of getting news out quickly but still making sure the information is accurate. Making sure to engage the readers is an important task for these copy editors because the online news community is all about the constant conversation between the readers and the authors. At this paper, the copy editors are in charge of maintaining that engagement, and fostering an environment where comments are encouraged and where staff members respond.
            Since the paper is still working on creating a print version as well, there is a smaller team of editors and designers that develop the print paper based off of information that has already been published online. This shows that it is very clear the online publication is more important to them at this point than the print version. It’s almost as if the print version of their publication is more of an after thought to the online content.

            I’m really impressed that they assigned the duties of watching the comment boards to members of their staff. That way it’s not just the responsibility of the author to keep checking back on the comments, but other members of the staff are watching and providing their own feedback as well. This brings together the entire community of readers and staff and generates a well-rounded conversation than just the one author and the few comments from the readers.

“AEJMC: Social Media in the Classroom”

Coursework for Penn State University Journalism class
2.22.2011

            With the advancements in technology and the recent increase in popularity of social media, copy editors are finding new challenges in their line of work. One way that social media is changing the world of copy editing is in the classroom. In this case, social media is becoming a convenient and widely accepted means for receiving and sharing news. Many businesses and news sources are embracing social media and online news blogs in order to break news faster and therefore keep up in the fast paced world we live in now. With this increased speed in reporting, emphasis on copy editing proficiency is vital.
            Associate Professor at Howard University Yanick Lamb notes that they are “placing a greater emphasis on Interactive Editing” for print news sources as well as those who use the Internet. A great point is made that it’s still imperative to emphasize the importance of high journalistic standards to keep students away from the glamour of the speediness that can surround breaking a story via twitter. Quality should not be sacrificed at the expense of being the first to report something.
            The teachings from this article can be applied to students who aren’t interested in going the route of Copy Editor because better journalists stem from a solid foundation of self-editing skills. Speaking from experience (I write for OnwardState.com) I can attest to this fact: often times I am responsible for writing my own headlines and excerpts, and it’s always expected that our posts are to be well-written – specifically the later you submit a post the cleaner it should be as to make less work for the editors.
            One point from the article I really connected with was when the author writers that journalism is a “two-way conversation with readers”. I thought this was a great point to make, especially if a journalist wants to be successful, because it encourages the interactive side of providing news. A story doesn’t die once it is reported – there’s always something more to follow up with whether it be a response from a reader or more information after the fact. With the increase of social media and online conversations, journalists and editors can create and maintain relationships with their readerships through actual back and forth dialogue. Some of the examples from the article such as StumbleUpon, Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube are proven means for disseminating information, especially to the younger upcoming generations. One client that wasn’t mentioned in the article is Yammer. This is an online forum that businesses or organizations can use that looks similar to a stream of Facebook updates – but members can only be invited to join. Within these communities the organizations can form groups, generate different feeds depending on topics, designate positions, private message each other, and overall form an online newsroom (which is what we do at OnwardState).
            The author says that Twitter helps students focus on the main point of a story because a tweet can only consist of 140 characters. This helps writers and editors realize the point of a story, and allows them to make it in a more concise manner. Examples from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Heart & Soul magazine show how these organizations utilize the culture of twitter to spread their information. The article then goes on to provide examples of different exercises teachers can do to help students realize how they can utilize different social media tools for journalistic purposes.