Communicating With The Dead

Among the ancient questions are: Is there life after death? If so, can the living communicate with the dead?

Anyone who’s ever thought about dying has probably cobbled together an answer they can live with. Most world religions have done more than cobble; they’ve exquisitely designed complex ideas on the matter. Among these is Catholicism’s “communion of saints” which says everyone lives on after death to become a community of souls who can relate to one another from both sides of the grave.

OK, lets see how that works….!

* If you’ve taken the time to plumb the depths of the dead, there’s an excellent chance you might be able to commune with their ideas as well. For instance, I intuit Lincoln would have had some problems with today’sTea Party and anyone else who seeks to crush the role of government in our lives. He fought with tens of thousands of lives to preserve that very government.

* If I try to commune with Teddy Roosevelt, I’m pretty sure his trust-busting policies would be saying to today’s plutocrats: Enough! It’s again time for you to stop reaping rewards tantamount to rape.

* Communing with FDR, I’m pretty sure he’d remind me how he loved his country so much that even he, a wealthy aristocrat, felt obliged to stand up to the “economic royalists” of his day.

* As for my Dad, I’d have a wonderful conversation about the American Dream. As an immigrant, he dreamed it and then lived it. He became a business owner. I can still hear him saying “the business of America is business.” Although he would have a helleva problem with today’s Wall Street’s version.

Who do you commune with at night…? If you do, I suppose you too are banking on a hereafter. Right or wrong, the very thought might make a lot more politicians a lot more decent this campaign.

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • Let me try, please!

    Lincoln might have had trouble with today's Occupy Movement, which demands something for nothing by beggaring thy neighbor.

    Teddy, whilst not being the publicity seeking hound that he was, racing over to a war with Spain in Cuba, where he was not needed, and where he charged up a hill that did not need charging, would not recognize --even to his Progressive sensibilities-- the nanny state of affairs that is the United States. His Rough Riders would need seat belts on their steeds, for God's sake. (Oh, Bully, somebody tell Teddy that "God" is not really a term to be used by today's politicians, unless they are pandering.)

    FDR so loved this country that he and his alphabet soup of agencies and programs, such as the NRA, which allowed the Prez himself to set codes for commerce that had the effect of law. He did this usually from bed in the morning, where he also arbitrarily set the price of gold as well, which he confiscated from the public, leaving them only with government greenbacks. A couple of immigrants brothers in NYC, named Schechter, who owned Schechter Poultry, fought FDR for the right to sell chickens their way, and won. Like a future president, Barack Obama, FDR had no problem raising money from Wall Street on one hand and then slamming them on the other -- all for show.

    Oh, wait, who is it that I am intuiting? Why, James and Tom, those silly Constitutional guys. They are a bit aghast at the state of the union. Tom Jefferson says to James Madison, "I just knew it. I knew it." James sighs, "It is probably human nature, that others want what others have, and that they will vote it from their neighbor, if possible." Tom: "There's nothing left to do but have some rum and dream about what could have been, had they been able to keep the Republic".

    Obama is communing with the collectivist dreams of his father -- and a win in 2012 will further those dreams into reality.

  • Richard ~ You know your history, but I think you're recalling it selectively Abe, Teddy and FDR realized this was no longer a simple pastoral society whose rugged individualism was all that was needed. Even Tom used the government (his executive powers) to explore and acquire the entire Louisiana Purchase. Sometimes big government can lead to big results. Balance, of course, is always the key...

  • I'm not so sure that Lincoln was trying to save the government, just the Union. Remember, he was from the back woods (unless he suddenly became a Springfield politician of the type of scum that's there now). He probably would depart from current Republicans in that his administration was one of the first to inflate the money supply, not that the Confederates weren't doing the same.

    The only thing I can say with regard to Teddy and trust busting, is that he probably wouldn't have allowed all the mergers that have been precleared by the Justice Dept., and the Clinton one was the worst in that regard. I'm shocked that this Justice Dept. blocked the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile, but the way that complaint was written, there was no way that that merger would have been legal, and AT&T recognized that. I contend that prior administrations should not have let AT&T reconstitute itself under the leadership of its most backward component (SBC) to begin with.

    Richard is correct that the precedent of the late 30s frames today's Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and, one way or the other, is going to determine the outcome of the health care case.

    But as far as FDR being "a wealthy aristocrat standing up," nothing different with today's liberals, from the Hollywood "protectors of the poor," I mean "holders of Democratic fundraisers" to Warren Buffett saying "raise my taxes," but not making a voluntary donation to the Treasury. I bet he even deducted his donation to the Gates Foundation.

  • Jack, let's assume that Abe, Teddy and FDR, looked out over fly -over land and decided that the pastoral society, which never did exist in the US, was over. Does this realization mean that they assume imperial powers, as did Abe, as did Teddy and certainly did FDR? As does Obama? Just because the great unwashed are, well, too stupid in the minds of the imperials, to tie their shoes and feed their children without a government program, does this mean Daddy Obama makes the eggs and insists that kids "eat their peas"? When does individual sovereignty dissolve into the collective? Have we crossed that paradigm where we are happy to be absorbed into the leviathan ?

    The problem, Jack, is balance. And law as outline by the US Constitution. You, I and the rest of the plebes in the US, cannot get up and walk through their house without the government overseeing that walk through various mandates. When the government mandates a twisty bulb full of mercury, costing much more than an ordinary lightbulb, a rational person might say the balance is gone. Now, thanks to that bit of insanity, you have to call a haz-mat team for a broken light bulb. Balance --O--Balance, thy name is not the governments within the US anymore.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    First, I don't believe that you typed anything responsive to my post. The only thing I said remotely close to this is that 30s precedent is the precedent.

    And if you are talking balance, you are off balance. If you want to talk nanny state, that capitalist Bloomberg wants to keep you from drinking a Big Gulp. Last I heard, he is a Republican. That's a heck of a lot more interference than what Obama has ever proposed. All he does is sends out Michelle to tell kids to exercise.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack just jack, I was not responding to you, but rather the Jack of the blog post. If you carefully noticed there was no "In reply to Jack".

    On a matter of balance, Jack just jack, I think that Bloomberg's restriction of sugary drinks pales in comparison to Obama's intrusion into the health and well being through the Affordable Health Care Act, not that I agree with either.

    He sends Michelle out to tell kids to exercise? No, she is the new nation's uber chef, telling everybody what they must eat, whilst she munches on french fries.

    That said, why should I respond to your post when I agree with most of it?

    Sorry about the jacked-up confusion.

  • I was thinking about the title of your post, Jack. That's how I felt sometimes when I was teaching.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Aquinas ~ As a another retired teacher, I'm laughing through my tears!

Leave a comment