Revisit: “Man in the Arena.” Character, Cops, and Journalists without any.

In the summer of ’08, SteveM19 posted this notable thread

http://fulhamusa.com/threads/character-cops-and-journalists-without-any.6714/

Since then, we see that the more things change the more they get worse. Since then Journo’s and pressure groups have made a meal of cop dishonor using the death of a thug as an excuse while glossing over real atrocious behavior - again in Cleveland, where a kid with a toy gun was killed by a cop who had already been fired once as incompetent to carry a firearm; and in the Carolina’s where a cop told a young black man to produce ID then shot him when he reached into his vehicle to get it. That cop was immediately fired, so there can’t be much outrage there.

- Radley Balko’s career documenting of innocent blacks by militarized cop action being roundly ignored.

And we see quixotic journo’s promoting the President as the Reagan of the left. Given the realization of his Progressive aims and ideals, I wonder why Teddy Roosevelt is not invoked, instead. After all TR co-founded the Progressive Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

The reason, on introspection, might just be that it would embarrass most pols. There is of course no indication at all the the learned Chief Exec knows anything about Teddy and his political bent. OR perhaps he studied him a lot and found some inconvenient views on Eugenics, and race, as well as the immigrant’s place in the the US culture.
Certainly TR being the original American Imperialist is not the message Progressives want out there.
Perhaps, in Foreign Policy, it’s Reagan’s hit and run in Grenada and bugging-out of Lebanon in the face of the barracks bombing he regards as sound policy.
And certainly, in the absence of reference in that wiki, to TR’s best speech ever, we might smell something.

‘Man in the Arena’ is very much admired as a statement of character. And I would think any pol would like to invoke it in defense of his character, actions and standing.
Well, I think it might cause a more critical eye to be cast on those who invoke it.
Because:

1. To invoke it might suggest admission of failure on the part of the speaker
2. People would read the rest of the speech and might get the opposite message intended.

Read the red font ‘Man in the Arena’ Then, below comments, the entire speech in context.

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

Perhaps it’s embarrassing for Progressives to think about TR’s attitude toward the value of work?
Perhaps it’s his view on the relationship between big business and government. Occupy being a nice feint that distracts from the real issues.

It would be REALLY interesting to know what TR’s views would be on Man-Made Global Warming
And the charges that Big Oil funds ‘Deniers’ And where the money for enviros really comes from.
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.wNIWtzzg.dpbs

You think TR would use the phrase?:

“It is entirely legitimate for, the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a buncha, uh… violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a, in a deli in Paris. ”

- Not to mention a random bunch of misfits randomly commandeering planes to crash randomly into a few random office buildings.


Geez... please, sir, give us Theodore Roosevelt Jr
- Again, from the speech at Sorbonne

“My position as regards the moneyed interests can be put in a few words. In every civilized society property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily, and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property. In fact, it is essential to good citizenship clearly to understand that there are certain qualities which we in a democracy are prone to admire in and of themselves, which ought by rights to be judged admirable or the reverse solely from the standpoint of the use made of them. Foremost among these I should include two very distinct gifts - the gift of money-making and the gift of oratory. Money-making, the money touch I have spoken of above. It is a quality which in a moderate degree is essential. It may be useful when developed to a very great degree, but only if accompanied and controlled by other qualities; and without such control the possessor tends to develop into one of the least attractive types produced by a modern industrial democracy. So it is with the orator. It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in democracy should be able to state his views clearly and convincingly. But all that the oratory can do of value to the community is enable the man thus to explain himself; if it enables the orator to put false values on things, it merely makes him power for mischief. Some excellent public servants have not that gift at all, and must merely rely on their deeds to speak for them; and unless oratory does represent genuine conviction based on good common sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives. Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand. The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.

Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator's latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist. The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He cna do, and often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience.”

- [Bold Emphases, mine.]

 

Perhaps if you opened your mind JUST a little. The point is that TR is sort of embarrassing to modern day progressives.
For reasons I pointed out above.
among which I should say is crony corporatism. And how about 'Beware the Orator!'

why do I rant, still? Because I believe Saul Alinsky was a genius.
***
By the way, I just found out {missed it before} that Andrew Breitbart was ALSO inspired by Alinsky.
Remembering Breitbart as well as the NYT columnist, David Carr - passed yesterday - who wrote the best piece on Breitbart.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/b...of-andrew-breitbart.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

And in the best spirit of Alinsky, let us consider the senseless execution of three young Muslim people, who were living and abiding by the American Dream, by a hate-filled nutjob. Expect the outcry to die to a whisper... and it already is.. The real facts are inconvenient.

No one has yet tied the killer to the NRA, RW Christians, or even the Tea Party... though they have tried.


No.. he preferred the hateful rantings of Rachel Maddow to Rush Limbaugh.
So THAT's inconvenient.
Note there's NO reference ot him being a fan of any political perspective. ~crickets~

 

MORE interesting - to me - Alinskyist stuff:


Jesse A. Fox of Ohio State University says that men who posts selfies score higher as regards narcissism, and also as regards one trait of psychopaths, "self-objectification."

Hmmm.. but what if you have people to do that?

lol...

 

"His work towards trust busting and establishing the national park system are CONSTANTLY cited."
- Maybe you see it. I dont... but then I'm not an insider. You would think I would run across that considering I agree with those immediate results of his work.


In case you missed it Don. the ISSUE is that they dont mention him at all. And the point is it would be embarrassing. Funny that you who have been following these sorts of things for lo those many years cant -SEEM TO- get it.
Reminded of "I doubt Alinsky and Obama exchanged notes." {Sorry, I dont forget those little gems! }

 

Don, i gotta say your statements there are indistinguishable from what I can read in Daily Kos, MMFA and Raw Story. That is = patently untrue. Maybe I should actually join those facebrook groups and bring up the incongruities of what TR did and what Proggies SAY he would stand for

I ALREADY pointed thta out and you refuse to respond to that.

Like ask them what TR would do if his State Dept Spox GIRLIE! said that ISIS unrest and motives might be mitigated by their grunts having jobs.
She's a fucking liar and anyone who's paid attention for the last 15 years knows poverty has nothingn to do with it!

And how would you know WHAT conservatives think? Do you regularly read anything not pointed to or quoted on lefty sites? I sometimes watch MSNBC to see what they are saying WITHOUT being pointed at it. You used to be proud that you wouldnt watch Fox or listen to Rush.

I still say the die for our current mess where a president says 'random folks' are victims when he knows they are not random, was cast in Teheran, then Reagan bugging out of Lebanon, then the US not responding to the USS Cole and Embassy Bombings and th efirst WTC attack. Not to mention Dubya saying 'It is a Religion of PEace', Doing exactly the WRONG thing with the Green Zone and Bremer. Then after the Surge worked we dust our hands off and bug out of Iraq. How's that working out?
Where proggies are sure a Houston mosque was burned down by Tea Party people when it was a firebug vagrant. Sorry that those beautiful truly innocent Muslims were killed for no reason by a Rachel Maddow fan. Makes no sense because he's NUTS. Yet, suppose he 'Liked Rush or Hannity' or the Tea Party instead of the SPLC?

Suppose I say that the root motivation of ISIS atrocities is to CAUSE backlash against Muslims and bring about the Apocalypse. Will you say I got a tinfoil hat?
It's no different than the mullahs in Teheran in Carter's era. And Brzezinki's policies have led straight to where we are today. Progressives seem to think that these people are logical and open to reason. YOU know they are not.
The only truth in the current paralyzed policy is that the problem cannot be bombed away or fought on the ground. The only answer is is to answer the escalation by covertly taking out the HEADS of the beast. A bullet through the head of every Imam preachng this shit from the pulpit. Let THEM collect all the virgins. Take out Al Baghdadi, and all his Baathist underlings
I believe if you could bring back TR today, he would see the situation for what it is and that's what he would do. You probably believe he would have "evolved".

I would not believe you because you never rail against the backhand assaults on our country by those using their money power and influence to enrich themselves, further. Except for the Koch's of course. Never Steyer or Gore or or Harry Reid. Let alone George Soros.

 

Valid point in that, if he's mentioned on FB and other social media, I need to check it out.

my point that what's happening now would not happen if he was president stands. Unless like I say, he 'Evolved' somehow I dont think he would have.
Does Marie Harf saying ISIS recruits due to lack of job opportunities ring a bell?

Here's the point... ISIS and AQ and some Muslim Brotherhood are NOT open to reason. .
To THAT extent, the administration is correct that ombs guns and killing their ground troops wont fix it.
EVIL exists and wont be put off. It is they who consider it a Holy War akin to the Crusades and all unbe;lievers must be cowed into Dhimmitude. And they WANT us to make Muslim blood run so the 12th Imam {or whatever} returns to conquer to world.
The only answer is to take off the top. and work down. Those runnign the terror are NOT 'True Believers.
****
"We have an administration which has not had a major scandal in six years."
- David Axelrod on CSpan

 

well, the first group that came up when I searched FB pleased me so much I joined. Too bad the poor guy guy is a 'voice crying in the wilderness'.
This anecdote is a great example of TR's wisdom.