On this day June 19, back in 1885, the dismantled Statue of Liberty arrived in the New World, enclosed in more than 200 crates.
In 1865 a group of Frenchmen were discussing their dictator-like emperor, Napoleon III and America's successful democratic government and abolishing slavery at the end of the Civil War. The dinner was hosted by Edouard Rene de Laboulaye, an abolitionist and a leader of the "liberals," a political group dedicated to establishing a French republican government modeled on America's constitution. The dinner guests talked about the close relationship and love of liberty France and The United States shared. Laboulaye called France and America "the two sisters."
The "liberals" decided to build a monument to American freedom. A successful 31-year-old sculptor, Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, was at the dinner. He imagined a woman holding a torch burning with the light of freedom. They planned to call it "Liberty Enlightening the World," and it would commemorate the Franco-American alliance during the American Revolution.
We probably could not have won our freedom from Britain in the American Revolution without the help of France. They provided arms, ships, money, and men to American colonial rebels. The Marquis de Lafayette, a close friend of George Washington became one of the highest high-ranking officers in the American army. Washington may not have been able to defeat British General Charles Cornwallis at the battle of Yorktown if it weren't for the help of the French Navy.
Yet today, because they opposed our war on Iraq, we belittle them and rename French Fries and French Toast "Liberty Fries." What war hawk or "frog-basher" would seriously consider sending the Statue of Liberty back? I think it's been shameful how many times Americans have made jokes accusing the French of not fighting against Hitler in WWII. How ghastly that we have so little sense of history or perspective on the evil of fascism, and NAZIism that we could make light of the suffering and sacrifice of so many of the French people during such a dark time.
It took two decades to complete the 151-foot statue. In 1877, the U.S. Congress approved the use of New York's Bedloe Island. French supporters raised money to build a statue the size of a 15 story building without a pedestal. Her index finger alone is 8 feet long. July 4, 1884 it was officially offered to the United States by France, as a birthday gift. Then, it had to be taken apart, shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, and rebuilt in the U. S.
Americans raised money to pay for the pedestal it stands on. In 1885 Statue of Liberty arrived in New York City's harbor. It was 1886 when the statue was dedicated. At the time, she was the tallest structure in New York, reaching to a total height of 305 feet. It was truly "the eighth wonder of the world."
One of the original seven wonders of the world, the Colossus of Rhodes, was thought to have only stood about 105 ft tall. It was a huge bronze statue of the Greek sun god Helios, erected about 280 bc to guard the entrance to the harbor of a Greek island off the coast of what is now Turkey.
Which reminds me, I think it's important to remember the difference between symbolism and idolatry. I believe in the principles which our flag and the statue of liberty represent, but the flag and statue themselves are just things. Damage a flag and I'm just offended, damage my freedoms or speech, press, religion and political affiliation and we're all in a world of hurt. It's good to feel patriotic, it's more important to be patriotic.
There is no Helios or Appolo, and the Colossus of Rhodes was destroyed by an earthquake. Let's say terrorists had attacked the Statue of Liberty when they took out the World Trade Center. Would there still be liberty in the United States? Benjamin Franklin once said that "a nation that would sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserves neither liberty, nor security." Since September 11, 2001, we've begun to tread a thin line between justice and vengeance. I hope we don't sacrifice our civil liberties to the gods of pride and prowece.
In 1989 Chinese demonstrators fashioned a "Goddess of Democracy" out of styrofoam just before the Tienamin Square Massacre. Democracy in China was squashed, sadly, few people even remember their "goddess."
If you can believe this, there's been talk about erecting an gigantic angel monument in Los Angeles Harbor as sort of a twin or book-end on the other side of the country. I really don't remember if it was supposed to honor Asian and Latin American immigrants or just promote tourism. No doubt it will provoke debate about separation of church and state. Will the Catholics get a Mary-Queen of the Angels statue, or will the Mormons get an angel Moroni-who allegedly gave the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. My fear is that the entertainment industry will get to design it and it will just look like a colossal Emmy Award statue.
On the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty was inscribed "The New Colossus," a famous sonnet by Emma Lazarus that welcomed more than 12 million immigrants to the United States with the declaration,
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Does that lamp still provide the light of hope? How do we feel about poor, tired, homeless masses today? Are Mexican, Chinese, or Arab masses as welcomed as the Germans, Swedes and Irish?
What does she stand for anyway? What does she symbolize to you today?
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Thursday, June 05, 2003
Mistake of historic proportions
Benjamin Franklin coined one of his most famous quotes upon the close of the Constitutional convention, "Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
The important questions are, who’s doing the taxing, who’s being taxed, how much, and what is it being used for? Libertarians and Anarchists will remind you that the War for Independence was fought to end taxes, but the real issue was who was doing the taxing, who was taxed and how much, and where the money went. If Iowan’s taxes went to Canada, we’d revolt too.
A political activist once told me that they thought that one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans spend on physical infrastructure, while Dems spend on social programs. People or things.
In other words Republicans would spend our taxes on roads or street lights, Democrats on Driver’s Education programs. Case in point, the Iowa assembly, mostly Republican, want to offer money to school districts for building, but if they already have money to build, they may use the money for other things, like teacher salaries. The Teacher’s unions are frustrated with the legislature for not just offering money specifically for teacher salaries.
The old debate had always been, "guns or butter?" Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century our Federal Government decided they should try deficit spending to try to stimulate the economy. Sometimes it helps a little, sometimes it doesn’t, but what are the long term consequences?
When I try spending more money than I have, the people I owe bills to start calling me on the phone. Don’t pay, they’ll report it and wreck your credit, right? Eventually things get repossessed.
If you were say, a hundred thousand dollars in debt, would that be a good time to quit your job? Of course not, but the Bush Administration and the Republican led Congress and Senate have decided to cut Federal revenues by at least $330 billion, even though they need to spend record amounts of money on Homeland Security, baling out the states and $50-60 billion war with Iraq.
Mind you, I love having my taxes cut as much as the staunchest Republicans. When I get my treasury check for our earned-income-tax credits- er, I mean children, we’ll probably use it to pay off some of our college loans. But I’m not sure how that’s going to stimulate the economy.
The theory behind Bush’s tax cut is the same old "trickle-down" economics of his father and Ronald Reagan. The hope is, if you give wealthy investors and corporations huge tax cuts, they’ll reinvest their savings into their infrastructure, creating jobs, producing more tax revenue from paychecks and simultaneously giving those workers money as consumers.
The fatal flaw is human nature. We don’t reinvest and create jobs, we spend on ourselves or we figure out ways to turn an even bigger profit. The rich get richer, the rest of us get poorer.
Do you deserve to keep your hard earned dividends and your capital gains? I suppose, but most of us barely know what those are and certainly don’t have any. And what about our future? Is that "class-warfare?" Then so be it. I am no communist and do not advocate any kind of socialism, but President Bush seems to see the world through millionaire’s glasses.
Some estimates suggest that the current Bush budget will increase the deficit by more than $300B over last year's $158B deficit. If you don’t remember your high school economics, the deficit is the red ink, the money you spend beyond your income, money you don’t have.
And what about our future? Will the Social Security fund still dry up by 2035? What about Medicaid and Medicare? I’m worried about health insurance and college tuition.
Annual deficits pile up and create debt. At the time I wrote this, the U.S. National debt was rapidly approaching six and a half trillion dollars! For all the reasons there are to dislike Bill Clinton, the debt was actually shrinking during his presidency. The National Debt has increased an average of $992 million per day since September 30, 2002!
Debt and deficit hurt our credit, they hurt the value of the dollar, and they hurt the economy. As bad as the economy is, is it really worth selling our future?
The estimated population of the United States is 291,066,701 so each citizen's share of this debt is over $22,000.00. That means my 1 ½ year old daughter Ellen owes $22,000!
I appreciate lower taxes as much as anybody, but I’m having a hard time enjoying this one. I think it was a mistake of historic proportions.
1
The important questions are, who’s doing the taxing, who’s being taxed, how much, and what is it being used for? Libertarians and Anarchists will remind you that the War for Independence was fought to end taxes, but the real issue was who was doing the taxing, who was taxed and how much, and where the money went. If Iowan’s taxes went to Canada, we’d revolt too.
A political activist once told me that they thought that one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans spend on physical infrastructure, while Dems spend on social programs. People or things.
In other words Republicans would spend our taxes on roads or street lights, Democrats on Driver’s Education programs. Case in point, the Iowa assembly, mostly Republican, want to offer money to school districts for building, but if they already have money to build, they may use the money for other things, like teacher salaries. The Teacher’s unions are frustrated with the legislature for not just offering money specifically for teacher salaries.
The old debate had always been, "guns or butter?" Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century our Federal Government decided they should try deficit spending to try to stimulate the economy. Sometimes it helps a little, sometimes it doesn’t, but what are the long term consequences?
When I try spending more money than I have, the people I owe bills to start calling me on the phone. Don’t pay, they’ll report it and wreck your credit, right? Eventually things get repossessed.
If you were say, a hundred thousand dollars in debt, would that be a good time to quit your job? Of course not, but the Bush Administration and the Republican led Congress and Senate have decided to cut Federal revenues by at least $330 billion, even though they need to spend record amounts of money on Homeland Security, baling out the states and $50-60 billion war with Iraq.
Mind you, I love having my taxes cut as much as the staunchest Republicans. When I get my treasury check for our earned-income-tax credits- er, I mean children, we’ll probably use it to pay off some of our college loans. But I’m not sure how that’s going to stimulate the economy.
The theory behind Bush’s tax cut is the same old "trickle-down" economics of his father and Ronald Reagan. The hope is, if you give wealthy investors and corporations huge tax cuts, they’ll reinvest their savings into their infrastructure, creating jobs, producing more tax revenue from paychecks and simultaneously giving those workers money as consumers.
The fatal flaw is human nature. We don’t reinvest and create jobs, we spend on ourselves or we figure out ways to turn an even bigger profit. The rich get richer, the rest of us get poorer.
Do you deserve to keep your hard earned dividends and your capital gains? I suppose, but most of us barely know what those are and certainly don’t have any. And what about our future? Is that "class-warfare?" Then so be it. I am no communist and do not advocate any kind of socialism, but President Bush seems to see the world through millionaire’s glasses.
Some estimates suggest that the current Bush budget will increase the deficit by more than $300B over last year's $158B deficit. If you don’t remember your high school economics, the deficit is the red ink, the money you spend beyond your income, money you don’t have.
And what about our future? Will the Social Security fund still dry up by 2035? What about Medicaid and Medicare? I’m worried about health insurance and college tuition.
Annual deficits pile up and create debt. At the time I wrote this, the U.S. National debt was rapidly approaching six and a half trillion dollars! For all the reasons there are to dislike Bill Clinton, the debt was actually shrinking during his presidency. The National Debt has increased an average of $992 million per day since September 30, 2002!
Debt and deficit hurt our credit, they hurt the value of the dollar, and they hurt the economy. As bad as the economy is, is it really worth selling our future?
The estimated population of the United States is 291,066,701 so each citizen's share of this debt is over $22,000.00. That means my 1 ½ year old daughter Ellen owes $22,000!
I appreciate lower taxes as much as anybody, but I’m having a hard time enjoying this one. I think it was a mistake of historic proportions.
1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
