Ivan W. Parkins
To order Dr. Parkins book,
Perspectives For American Society
©Ivan W. Parkins 2008, All articles, text, web pages property of Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material requires permission of the
author and can be obtained by contacting, email@example.com
About Ivan W. Parkins:
Dr. Parkins is a retired professor of Political Science from Central Michigan University. He received his PhD from the University of Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval officer during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama. He is a recent widower with three daughters, 3 grand children and 2 great grand children. Dr. Parkins has written extensively, having authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column for many years.
Inside This Issue
Disassemble the House
The Political Long View
War and Their Costs
Dividing America, Part two
Disinformation, Liberal Ideology
The Supreme Court and Judiciary
The Presidency, Part One
The Presidency, Part Two
Failure of the People’s House
The Republic in Danger
MY EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF . . . .?
Only a few years late, a New Century, promised by the 1960s and ‘70s, is blossoming in America. Thanks to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and its former officer Obama, its many congressional funders, and the generous oversight, or overlook, provided by traditional mass media, this nation will be free again!
The millennia of human struggle against moldering ethical and legal concepts is nearing victory. Someday is here, and we have overcome!
No mere “City on a Hill,” America, the truly humane, will usher in a lasting and world-wide era of peace. Equality and justice will prevail. A new miracle of chemistry will lift the toll of death from malaria for millions of black babies.
(We’ve already saved millions of birds.) Dirty and degrading technologies will fade away—succeeded by tall and attractive windmills. (The cost may be a moderate number splattered of birds.)
Everyone will have a home, and live in the sunshine.
A new Age of Enlightenment is dawning!
The requisite voting of the 2008 elections has already begun in the United States of America. I.W. Parkins 10/08
THE 2008 ELECTION
Has the Democrat (Liberal) use of race
prejudiced the election?
By Ivan W. Parkins
Hitler was a very dangerous person. He was an outspoken racist and militarist; he was clearly responsible for death camps and military operations that killed several tens of millions. And, he is not credited with any sign of regretting those outcomes. So, how would he feel if he could know that others, mostly anti-racist and anti-militarist, have rivaled, perhaps exceeded, his genocides? And, their “accomplishment” is not even widely noticed.
That’s history. Our problem is do we now want people who appear to be similar to those who secured the ban on DDT to control the World’s largest economy and most powerful government? Certainly they will not emulate Hitler. But, as the horrendous toll from the DDT ban should warn us, the “good deeds” born of amateurish enthusiasms are not guaranteed to have beautiful consequences.
I fear Obama and his enthusiastic following, for much the same reason that I insist we should remember to compare Rachel Carson and her following with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as Very Dangerous. Hitler promised and produced change, much of it what he intended. Carson’s most significant result was no doubt unintended.
One reason for favoring leaders with substantial records of service is that they are seldom Very Dangerous. They try to base changes upon the best of what we have already. I spent the 1960s-“70s on college campuses in Florida, North Carolina, and Michigan. I began as a “liberal” Democrat and ended as a Republican, mostly because I began to see many of my colleagues and students as dangerous people.
In that period, there was an obvious shift of political opinions from an historical basis to great emphasis upon “relevance.” The latter being mostly a matter of matching with the mass media, especially television. And, when that sort of emphasis is combined with events by which white people, who pride themselves on their hatred of racism, can then fail to acknowledge clearly, acts that contributed heavily to the malaria deaths of millions of black babies, there is reason to fear for our republic.
It is too late for my life to be greatly affected by the coming elections, but I will leave progeny. And I deeply desire that they and their America will serve one another at least as well as I and my America have.
I will vote for John McCain and Republicans.
WHO’S WORD? ---
By Ivan W. Parkins
How do Democrats imply that Republicans are mainly responsible for both government deficits and the state of our economy? Answer: A pro-Democrat information system does not make clear the facts, available in any public library, that, for the past forty years, Democrats have dominated most Congresses, even under Republican Presidents.
How do you tag American conservatives with the “racist” label? Answer: They keep secret (almost) the fact that liberal environmentalists, with their ban of DDT, contributed to the malaria deaths of millions of black babies—perhaps the greatest racial genocide in history.
How do you maintain that the Youth Rebellion of the ‘60s and ‘70s was humane and progressive? Answer: They don’t do the math; population of the youth group times the increase in violent deaths among them, domestically, exceeded our combat deaths overseas in those decades.
How do you win the next election—maybe? Answer: Democrats campaign against America’s recent history, as it has been represented (falsely) in our Democrat leaning information media.
BETTER THAN GROWING MONEY ON TREES!?
Given an Internal Revenue Code that already defies the intellectual grasp of almost everyone, why not add to it one huge delusional graft? Most people recognize that growing money on trees takes a good deal of skill and a lot of hard work, but how many know that it is not easy to do it with the Internal Revenue Code? Indeed, it does seem to be possible for at least a few to do just that.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL this morning, October 13, 2008, provides what may be THE legendary October surprise, an editorial “Obama’s 95% Illusion.” The illusory part, according to the Journal’s account, is that much of what Obama calls “tax cuts” is actually just welfare or transfer payments made via changes in the tax code.
The “money tree” part of this is my translation. It is the unlikely prospect that, even disguised as a mere change in our tax code, a grand move toward socialism will produce a major improvement in the economic well-being of most Americans.
I.W. Parkins 10/08
A DOUBLE WHAMMY
By Ivan W. Parkins
Race appears to me as an especially perverted issue in this year’s election. Mostly, I believe that it obscures real issues of Barack Obama’s talents and experience.
One of my earliest impressions of Obama was that in appearance and poise he resembled a black president of student-body when I was first in the University of Chicago, just after WWII. A second impression was that he seemed to have charms similar to those of Jock. Jock was very African, and very black. He was a pre-med student sponsored by my M.D. brother-in-law and was present for several gatherings of our very white family. So far as I can recall, all members of our family found him to be both interesting and intelligent company.
My point with such personal things is to try and establish why I reject, totally and with some malice, the frequent implications of “liberals” that simple racial prejudice plays a major part in the views of conservatives. I sacrificed two of my first three teaching positions, partially at least, because some of my “superiors” found me to be too liberal in matters of race. In the third instance (1957), my two-year contract in a southern university was not renewed, for reasons that the dean refused to discuss.
Much of the “liberal” response to Civil Rights Laws in the 1960s was, I believe, selfish and malicious. Younger colleagues especially were inclined to seek credits for rising above the bigots. Mostly, they tried to blame earlier practices on a very broad
range of conservatives. This nation’s efforts to achieve real social adjustments and unity were confused, if not thwarted, by the selfish and vindictive attitudes of people, many of whom had experienced little of the real problems.
I contend that the ‘60s and ‘70s attitudes have been hugely destructive in their effects. They contributed to an increase of domestic violence, especially among young blacks, that exceeded our sacrifices in military efforts abroad. The ban obtained by environmentalists on DDT, has probably killed more blacks than died in all the colonial and slavery violence of the past three centuries. For America, and especially blacks, recent liberalism has been a double--whammy! Liberals made integration and unity more difficult to accept and more difficult for many whites to support. I.W.Parkins 1008
ALL THE NEWS?
By Ivan W. Parkins
Did your know that Jerry Zeifman, Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, when it was planning to impeach President Nixon, later published a book denouncing that procedure, CRIMES OF CAMELOT, 1995? I learned of it only recently while reading a very new book, THE SECRET PLOT TO MAKE TED KENNEDY PRESIDENT, by Geoff Shepard, 2008. Shepard, a Harvard Law graduate, received a fellowship to work in the Nixon White House. He offers an extensively documented report on the same point.
This “old news” hit me hard because it is so similar in nature to SELL OUT, the denunciation by Chief Investigative Counsel David Schippers of what he regards as a virtual House guarantee of Clinton’s acquittal. Like Zeifman, Schippers denounces procedures in which he headed the staff, and both were life-long Democrats.
If you want to look at the closed-door discussions of the House Judiciary in the Nixon case—live longer! The people’s Representatives put a 50-year secrecy “hold” on their discussions of (whose?) business.
Am I right in thinking that John Kerry has never released all of his war records? Isn’t it peculiar that our huge information system seems to overlook so much that is politically significant, especially if it might embarrass Democrats?