|

No Apology

The Book

Political TV ads can be fun. And annoying.

Debates can be fun. And maddening.

You can indeed learn things about the candidates from watching the ads and debates. But fifteen and thirty second snippets of information really don’t give you the full picture. And sometimes they actually hide the facts, producing nothing more than informational smog.

Recently, I decided I wanted to really know what Mitt Romney thought.  What he was about.  What he hopes to accomplish if he wins the presidency. If Mitt was someone in my neighborhood, I’d go visit the man, and we’d have a chat.

I’d ask him about his ideas and past. I’d ask him to give me examples. Because of the nature of the issues at stake and the number of them, I imagine our chat would probably last a few hours.  It might stretch over a number of evenings.

Of course, I’d want time to consider our chat and determine where I did and didn’t agree with him. I’d want to hear what others thought. And I’d want to look into his history, his successes and failures.

But the first step would be to go to the man himself and hear him out.

I hate it when people put words in my mouth. I’m sure Romney, or anyone else running, hates that same thing. If I were running, I’d would hope folks would take the time to hear me out. They may ultimately disagree with me on many or a few things. But I’d hope, as they are gathering information, that they would take the time to actually go to the source and listen to what I myself had to say.

Unfortunately, I can’t walk around the corner and knock on Mitt’s door. But he did write a book that was published in 2010, and it’s probably the next best thing to talking to Romney at his kitchen table. The book is called No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.

I’ll admit I thought it was going to be a dry guide book explaining his position on every hot political issue. It’s not a guide book.  In fact, he leaves a number of topics out. Nor was it dry.

I also suspected it might be a scathing attack piece on the Obama administration. It’s not that either.  Not even close. He does criticize some things where he and Obama differ, but he also commends him on a few things. Either way, Obama is a very small part of the book.

So what IS this book?

Romney states its purpose in the introduction: it’s “about what I believe should be our primary national objective: to keep America strong and to preserve its place as the world’s leading nation” and “the course I believe we must take to strengthen the nation in order to remain prosperous, secure, and free” (2). It’s about his ideas on how to make sure America does not falter as so many nations have, but remains wealthy, happy, and productive.

I finished the book yesterday. I found it interesting, personable, sometimes surprising, and insightful.

I found Mitt Romney to be a man self-deprecating humor.  He’s also a thinking man, one who likes to look at data to see what it shows. It’s clear he’s a man who does NOT think he knows everything or has a monopoly on every good idea, but he’s also a man who demands evidence.  I also saw a man who is kind.  He doesn’t talk much about his 14 years of service as a lay minister in his church in this book, but you can see how those years changed him as he discusses helping the unemployed, out-of-wedlock births, and single-parent families.  Finally, I saw a man who loves, LOVES, America and is convinced she can remain the hope of the earth, but only if we do things that foster our strength.

This book outlines what he thinks those things are.

The book is written in a conversational and easy style with many examples from his personal experience, studies, and history. Romney’s record of accomplishments demonstrates his skills and hard work ethic. This book explains to what end he would apply that skill and work.

If you’re planning on voting this November for the president of the United States, I think you’ll find this book very useful.  You may end up agreeing with many things he says. You may end up disagreeing with him on many points. But before you can do either, you need to understand what Romney’s position actually is.  And the first step in doing so is to fully hear the man out, in his own words, from his own lips.

As a result, whether you end up deciding he’s your candidate or not, you WILL come away with important insights into the issues discussed.

What’s Next

I want you to know that I do not worship George, Ben, Tom, Adam or any of the other guys who formed our constitution and started this nation.

They put their lives and fortunes on the line for what they believed in. And I am immensely grateful for what they did.  I enjoy tremendous freedoms because of their courage, determination, and sacrifice. Those guys, by-and-large, rock!

But I do NOT believe that their words are scripture nor that their ideas are sacrosanct—merely to be accepted and not to be considered and questioned and disagreed with.

Even so, these guys were gutsy and brilliant. They attempted something everyone thought would fail.  Something that HAD failed every time it had been attempted in their recorded history. But they pulled it off and changed the world.

These guys believed in the common man. They believed that the educated common man was the best person to hold the reins of government. Thomas Jefferson thought up a rhyme to make the idea easy to remember.  He said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

I can’t argue with that.

Of course, we’re not going to become experts on every policy issue. But we certainly can become informed on the broad principles and issues. And we can certainly become informed about the candidates.

Because I found No Apology so useful, over the next few days I’m going to summarize Romney’s main points, chapter by chapter, here. I’ll also point out interesting ideas and facts he shares as well as share any questions, quibbles, or disagreements I have.

I hope you find it useful. More importantly, I hope you read the book and join in the conversation.

Share

Similar Posts

  • Where the Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg

    I live among ranchers in northern Utah, people whose livelihood walks around on four legs. People who can lose thousands of dollars of future income if they lose one good cow or calf. People who think one of the dumbest things to happen in recent times in the West is the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. Now, I don’t agree with them, but I do think they have good cause.

    Contrary to what people will tell you, wolves do not kill just for food. Wolves kill because they like killing. If you don’t believe me, then believe Temple Grandin, an expert on animals, who asks the question in her Animals in Translation: “Is it fun to kill a groundhog?” 

    She reviews a number of studies done on animals and answers with an unequivocal yes, predators love to kill. In fact:

    “Animals like having their predatory killing circuits turned on, and will turn them on themselves if you show them how. When you think about what predatory killing is all about, of course it ought to feel good, because predatory killing means dinner. Killing a mouse feels good to a cat the same way finding a luscious ripe banana feels good to a primate.” (p138)

    What this means is that when wolves come to kill sheep, they don’t just kill one old and decrepit ewe. No, they do what they did on a neighbor’s land a few miles from my home. They maim and kill five or six. Not because two wolves were that hungry, but because it was fun and they could.

    Sheep are like popcorn to wolves. Compare them to elk or other wild animals. The reason why wolves tend to indeed eliminate the young, weak, and old in the wild is that those poor specimens tend to run a bit slower than their brethren. In the wild, slow means dead. For the wolf, it’s hard work to run down an elk or buffalo. And if you’re a hungry son-of-a-gun, you’re not going to go chasing after another dinner while there’s fresh meat in front of you because the rest of the pack will eat it before you get back. And you ain’t going to catch one on your own anyway. But sheep aren’t elk. Cattle aren’t elk. They’re bred for meat, not sprinting. Sheep are easy meat. And the wolves can’t help themselves.

    But even if the wolves exercise restraint and eat just one, that’s cash. That’s clothes for the kids. That’s a mortgage. That’s heat. And it’s a danger for children as well (adults I don’t worry about: who cares about a few devoured adults?). My girls like to hike. And while I’m sure wolves will usually stay away, a sick or starving wolf will risk humans just as sick and starving mountain lions do. You get a different mindset about predators when you live up where I do. When they’re not something you see caged up in the zoo or on PBS.

    For all these reasons and others, I couldn’t wait to read Where The Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg. Folks, the book is fabulous–well-written and interesting from page one to the very end. The key point is that predators play a huge role in maintaining a healthy diversity of both plant and animal life in any given ecosystem. Stolzenburg begins with starfish and moves through otters, killer whales, jaguars, mountain lions, and wolves. Along the way he reveals just how important killing is.

    Yes, killing is critical to life as we know it.

    Because without it, the most dominant herbivores will end up eating all the food. And this will end up killing off most of the other herbivores. It will kill off the great variety of flora in any given system. It can turn a paradise into a hell as Stolzenburg illustrates with the islands of Lago Guri in Venezuela. 

    Of course, some people think the answer is to bring back all the big predators. The rewilding supporters want to populate the West not only with wolves, but also lions (African), jaguars, cheetahs. Heck, they salivate at the idea of giant Pleistocene bears that can run faster than a horse (yeah, I want one of those up where the Boy Scouts camp).  I think it’s good the wolves are back in Yellowstone. But I don’t want packs of wolves eating my friend’s herds and daughters (of course, maybe a few Boy Scouts are okay). Still, I believe there has to be another alternative. What that is I don’t know. But we all need to think about it. We do. And great way to start is by reading Stolzenburg’s book.

    Share
  • Good Stuff! Woman in Gold

    Woman in GoldI recently watch Woman in Gold with my family, and we loved it. It has delightful characters, a suspenseful plot, and moments of both humor and deep poignancy.

    The movie is based on the true story of Maria Altmann, an elderly Jew living in Los Angeles. When she was a young woman, the Nazis took over Austria. She fled, narrowly escaping. In addition to all the horrors committed against her people and family that couldn’t get out, the Nazis stole artwork and other precious items. The problem is that after the war, many of these items were then appropriated by individuals or the countries of Europe and not returned to their original owners.

    The movie is about Maria and her young lawyer who fight the Austrian government to have a famous painting called Woman in Gold that was legally and rightfully hers returned. It’s a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2004. But this isn’t about someone wanting a painting. It’s about so much more.

    If you enjoyed Mr. Holmes, Saving Mr. Banks, or Bridge of Spies, I think you will love this movie. You will love the dynamic between the frank-speaking Maria and her lawyer. And you will be moved.

    Share
  • Good Stuff! The Greatest Showman

    I saw the previews of The Greatest Showman, the movie about the circus guy. I rolled my eyes. The circus? Come on.

    But my daughters, one by one, went to see it and came home raving.

    And then my wife went to see it and came home raving.

    And then my youngest was playing some music the other night, and I said, “Ooh, that’s nice. Good beat. Wow. What is that?”

    She said with much affection, “The Greatest Showman, loser.”

    I said to myself, maybe the previews simply stank. I said, I’ve seen movies where the previews were better than the full-length film. Maybe this was the reverse.

    I said, to my fine daughter and wife, “How about a movie night?”

    They were more than game to see it a second time. So we went and saw The Greatest Showman this week.

    Here’s the report.

    Oh. My. Holy. Freaking. Heck!

    This movie is one of the best movies I’ve seen in the last few years. And get this: it was released more than eleven weeks ago, back in December of last year. How many movies do you know that stay in the theaters for eleven weeks straight? When a movie keeps attracting crowds week after week, long after the release night hype has faded, they say it “has legs.”

    Let me tell you, this one has some legs. The music is awesome. The visuals are wonderful. And the story—the story is everything a story should be. I came out of the theater having wept and cheered and bitten my nails and been thrilled with a number of the scenes. I came out of the theater happy, positive, thinking about life, thinking about what really matters.

    Look, if you enjoy musicals, if you enjoy dramas, if you enjoy Hugh Jackman of Wolverine fame, you must drop everything you’re doing right now and run to see this before it leaves the theaters. You’ll be so happy you did.

    And now, I’m going to figure out how I can go see it again.

    Share
  • Harry Reid’s Chickens

    Are we all wearing Coke bottle glasses with this government shut down?

    First, it seems silly to me when reporters ask Americans who is causing the shut down. It’s like, duh, if either party just gave into the other party’s demands, we wouldn’t have the issue. Which means that BOTH parties are causing the shut down.

    Second, it seems a lot of folks have forgotten that this is precisely what should happen.

    What?

    Yes, our government is designed to allow these types of things.

    But, John, isn’t that just asinine?

    No. It’s not an oversight. I think it’s smart. Even if it causes some pain.

    Let me explain what it seems some in the media and elsewhere are forgetting.

    This is not a nation that belongs to a government. It’s not a nation owned by some lord or entity. This is a nation of individuals who decided to band together because we thought that banding together would allow us to protect our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness better than if we stood alone individually.

    This is a nation of individuals who said, you know, we think we can figure things out better together ourselves than having someone dictating to us what we’re going to do. We’ll get together and talk. We’ll argue. We’ll persuade. We’ll try to convince each other of our individual ways of thinking. And when enough of us are convinced that we should do something, we’ll act.

    We’ll set up a process for talking and making decisions that ensures everyone can be heard. It would be great if we could get 100% agreement on everything, but we know that’s not realistic. At the same time, we don’t like the idea of forcing our will on others. So we’ll make a compromise; we’ll set up the rules for making decisions so it requires that a good majority of us are in agreement before we can take action, especially on matters that are important to a lot of us.

    Finally, we’ll make sure no individual or group can take control and deprive us of this way of living. We did the monarch thing, and we’re done with that. We will not bow to any king ever again. We’re going to be very careful about this one item because a lot of bad things begin to happen when any one person or group gets too much power.

    So we set up the rules and started working together this way. And the basic premise under all of this is that we would respect each other’s free will. We’re a land of liberty. We’re a land where we get together and agree on a course of action. Not one where we impose our will on others.

    One of the main methods we used to ensure that no individual or group could take control of the rest of us and that a good majority of us must agree before taking a course of governmental action was to distribute the power to make and enforce rules. We did this in a wide variety of ways. We did this because power’s a slippery thing and easily abused. Furthermore, because we knew no system is perfect, we also set up a system of checks and balances so that if one person or group abused their power, we could stop them and force them to remember to respect the freewill that the rest of us have.

    So what has caused this shutdown?

    It’s very simple.

    A lot of Americans do not agree with Obamacare. By most polls, it’s a majority of Americans. They were not listened to when it was being developed. They were not listened to when it was made law. They feel it was passed, not with open discussion, but a lot of chicanery. They feel it’s not some minor regulation, but a very big thing that will infringe on their rights to live how they want to live.

    Now, it might be that all their fears are unfounded. It might be that Obamacare is going to usher in utopia. Many signs suggest it’s not going to do anything of the sort. But let’s just say it is the finest piece of legislation ever. Let’s say is a celestial piece of governing.

    That isn’t enough.

    It’s not nearly enough.

    Because this is not a nation that belongs to any group. We are a nation of individuals who have banded together, agreeing that we will talk things out amongst ourselves and only act when a good majority of us agree on a course of action. This is a nation that tries to tread lightly on each other’s liberty.

    But many of the folks in Washington back in 2009-2010 forgot this and forced this thing called Obamacare upon the rest of us; in doing so, they violated one of the basic agreements of our compact. If they had followed the underlying intent of our union, they would not have done what they did. They would have crafted legislation that a good majority of us could get behind.

    In 2010, those of us who protested this use of power voted in new folks into the House of Representatives to deal with the matter. In fact, when given the chance, Americans (both Republican and Democrat) in the heavily Democratic state of Massachusetts voted Republican Scott Brown into office, hoping to stop this legislation in the Senate before it became law. But Harry Reid didn’t listen. He didn’t care. He and Pelosi and Obama weren’t interested in allowing a full national discussion. He and the others were more concerned with getting their way. And so he used a parliamentary trick to force it through.

    This shut down is about one group of people forcing their will on the rest of us. It’s about using the checks and balances designed into the system to correct such errors. It’s about the chickens of some poor decisions coming home to roost.

    I know the shut down has caused issues. It’s a partial shutdown; 13% of the government. I think 87% is still funded and running. Still, I know it’s causing some pain.

    But none of that pain needs to occur. Everyone wants to fund cancer research. Everyone wants to help poor single mothers. Those things aren’t the issue. The issue is that not everyone agrees with Obamacare.

    If you’re a supporter of Obamacare, let me ask you this: if the tables were turned, what would you do?

    Would you not stare at the folks trying to force their will on you and say, hey, come on. We’re adults here. We all agreed that we wouldn’t do anything unless a good majority of us were convinced it was the right course of action. Let’s get together and come up with something a good majority of us can get behind.

    If you’re an opponent of Obamacare, you too should recognize that a good portion of your fellow citizens are clamoring to change the way things are. They’ve been clamoring for some time. Should you force your will on them? Or should you sit down and listen and try to come up with something that addresses the points we can agree on?

    I don’t know if the folks many of us voted to go to Washington will stick to their guns and correct this. I hope they do. And I hope that those on both sides who have forgotten one of the basic tenets of our social compact will wake up and remember we are banded together, not to game the system to get what we want, but to act on only what a good majority of us want.

    Share
  • Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog

    I enjoyed Joss Whedon’s movie Serenity as well as many of the TV episodes of Firefly which featured the same characters and world. So when I saw Whedon had put up another movie called Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog and made it available over the internet, I had to watch it. And then watch it again, and again.

    I loved the characters. I couldn’t get some of the songs out of my mind. Some of the plot turns simply delighted. Here’s a preview.

    And here’s where you can watch it right now for free. It’s only 42 minutes long. Give it 4 minutes (literally). If you’re not hooked, let me know right here. I’d give it a PG-13 for some language and thematic stuff.

    Share