Saturday, April 04, 2009

On Irenic Dialogue, When It Will Not Be Undertaken, and When We Will Get Nasty To Certain Emailers of a Disgustingly Unethical Nature:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This posting was occasioned by the following thread from Andrew Breitbart circa March 30, 2009:

Online Activists On the Right, Unite! (Andrew Breitbart)

I want to interact with a few samples of his content before I comment in expository fashion...

A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power. We must not let that go unanswered.

Oh I have never intended to.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

And as far as I am concerned at least, they will not succeed.

During the Clinton impeachment scandal, a new group out of California called MoveOn.org employed a plan to get its members to dial into right-leaning talk radio shows with scripted talking points falsely claiming that they were Republicans.

It is funny that Andrew Breitbart mentions this because while not exactly the same thing, I have been party over the years to various emailers who have sought to take issue with me on what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be my views on persons and issues. Of course since I am not beholden to any political party and as my views do not fit neatly into any given category, there is inevitably as much missing as hitting the mark in what they send me. But I have noticed a pattern at times where I am sent tract like arguments supported with various references -as for whether or not I respond to them depends on the time I have and the extent to which a given subject matter interests me or not.

In an example of one of these received last week, I wrote a detailed response to it and posted the text to this blog{1} and in other mediums and sent a version of the text to the emailer only to get a bounced email reply with the mailer daemon claiming that the account "does not exist." This intrigued me a bit so I did some word searchs at my gmail account to find similar emails from months past and sent testing emails to two of them.

As the end result was bounced emails and claims from the mailer daemon that said accounts "do not exist", this makes it clear to me that some of these are the sorts of liberals from the Moveon.Org school. They sent me their stuff but did not have a return address indicating that they were not interested in a dialogue on issues but instead wanted to send me stuff opposing what they believe are my views from fake email accounts. This means they want to try and spout off whatever lies, mistruths, libels, and the like against others without feeling morally and ethically responsible for the content thereof. So while this brands such people as obviously a bunch of chickenshit cowards, I address the rest of this posting to them and their ilk right now.

Insofar as the emails you sorts send have the same patterns to them, I can now after a brief scanning of the text know if I am dealing with someone of goodwill or a spammer. Such emailers will have a "test email" sent to their account to see if it bounces and if it does not, I will if inclined respond amicably. But if it does bounce, I will from this point forward not only rationally refute what you sorts send but I will rip it to shreds and not be even the slightest bit irenic in doing so.

For I am not about to let the "weaker brethren" amongst my conservative positional allies be taken in by such things, those refutations will be circulated to people on my mailing list and in other mediums so that your efforts insofar as I have any say in the matter will fail and fail badly. This will be the policy of Rerum Novarum from this day forward in perpetuity insofar as I have time to deal with these matters and (when I do not) I may very well farm out for "target practice" to friends of mine pieces I personally do not have time to deal with as they see fit and will publish their responses with their concurrence and all rights reserved to them on this humble weblog.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} I refer to this posting from March 26, 2009 where I responded to an emailer with regards to criticisms raised against Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, April 03, 2009

On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.

To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.

By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.

Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.

We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.

Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.

I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.

Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.

On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.

The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.

To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.

The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.

So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.

So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.

As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.

If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.

Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.

Notes:

{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.

{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.

{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.

{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.

{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.

{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.

{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.

{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.

{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.

{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.

{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.

{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.

{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.

{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.

{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)

{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.

{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).

{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.

{19} See footnote fifteen.

{20} Too numerous to go into here.

{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."

{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.

{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.

{24} See footnote twenty.

{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

And for a haiku based on a variation of Albert King's Matchbox Blues -itself borrowing heavily from the work of Blind Lemon Jefferson...

sometimes I wonder
will a matchbox hold my clothes
got so far to go
[Written on 1/27/08]

Labels: ,

Points to Ponder:

There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. [George Washington]

Labels: , ,

On the Passing of Ron Silver and on Suffering for Truth:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

"[W]hat courage traditionally meant was risking the disapprobation of people you know. It was about losing friends, losing work and losing status where you live -- not alienating people you will never meet. Insulting people in Kansas when you live in Los Angeles is not speaking truth to power; it's speaking anything to serve power." [Ann Coulter on the Courage of Ron Silver]

I want to start this off with some articles on Ron Silver which were in the mainstream media in recent days so without further ado...

Silver Star

Obituary of Ron Silver (New York Times)

Silver's Bravery Not An Act (Ann Coulter)

To discuss the man himself, Ron Silver is a man I greatly respect. Yes I say I greatly respect in present and not past tense is used because in the Judeo-Christian tradition we believe the soul lives beyond this mortal coil. But lest this statement bring forth a host of predictable and erroneous presumptions, I want to touch on them at this point at least in brief.

To start with, I do not respect Ron Silver because he agreed with me -indeed I do not and never have based respect on this criteria though obviously if there is agreement it cannot hurt.{1} But more important than agreement is the principle of truth and a person's approach to the latter. For there are those I agree a lot with whom I do not have much if any respect for and conversely, there are those I agree very little with whom I have a great deal of respect for. In the case of Ron Silver as with anyone, this factor while helpful to some extent is not strictly speaking obligatory. It boils down as I have said many times over the years to someone being willing to access from time to time their foundational presuppositions or those lenses through which they filter all the information they receive and whether said presuppositions are true or not. This is something that Ron Silver did.

While Silver was not a conventional sort in Hollywood even in his liberal days{2}; however, 9/11 changed him. It wrought in him a change in his foundational presuppositions which caused him to view things differently than before. This set him at odds with a lot of his friends and colleagues. He could have done one of two things at this point for someone who was passionate about ideas.{3} One was close his eyes and pretend not to see what he saw for the sake of family accord and retaining the bonds of friendship and peer/colleague kinships. But Ron Silver of Jewish lineage followed however unconsciously the dictum of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who said that those are not worthy who do not hate their father, mother, wife, children, etc. for the sake of what is true.{4}

Indeed, I am someone who has over the years their own degree of suffering in a variety of ways for following what my light of conscience tells me is true or at least probably so.{5} Therefore, when I see in someone else the willingness to follow their conscience to the point of suffering for it either through ostracizing by former colleagues, peers, acquaintances, friends, family, etc. it creates for me a kind of spiritual kinship with them. Having been there myself as I said, I understand at the very least in an approximate fashion what they are going through. As a result of such circumstances, I have been able to have friends that other friends have wondered how I could be friends with them and if I was to give an answer, this is it in a nutshell: I have a connection between those who suffer loss in following what they believe is true however much I believe they may or may not be mistaken in doing so.

So from this standpoint when you look at what Ron Silver lost for the sake of his convictions and following them, it should engender in anyone who takes ideas seriously at least a begrudging respect. In my case the respect is more than begrudging and I concur with Ann Coulter's words in the opening quote of this posting as well as those when she said that with Silver's passing "there is one less person in the world who never chooses his positions to feed a pompous ego or to stroke his self-image as a thinking person." The world never has enough of these kinds of people and now it has one less. I pray that through his trials and in his final bout with cancer that Ron may have been prepared for what is to come and and that his example may serve to educate others in what genuine bravery (as opposed to the pseudo "bravery" of self-righteous Hollywood sorts) actually entails. And of course that God may rest the soul of Ron Silver.

Notes:

{1} I say this because I believe on the lions share of issues and certainly in my general view of things I am right. However, I have had the same view before on some issues and found reasonable cause to reassess them at which time my view changed. So for that reason let it suffice to say that I believe I am either right or (at the very least) I have not been remotely persuaded to the contrary as of this writing.

{2} Meaning, he had certain views that did not jive with the predominant liberal weltanschauung.

{3} There is also the lethargic indifference option but it does not apply here.

{4} Hatred in this sense being properly understood as not actual hatred of course but having the disposition of not allowing anyone (whoever they are) to get between someone and their search for (or adherence to) what they believe in conscience. Hence Jesus said those who would follow him were not worthy of him if they put anyone as an impediment between themselves and Jesus if they believed He was Truth.

{5} What I mean by "probably so" is that one can only base their adherence to any principle or set of principles thereof on a basis of probabilities or what can be referred to as motives of credibility with the particular view being weighed in light of the latter. The greater the number and/or logical the arguments adduced for a particular view the more said view can be said to be "probable" in its pertinence to the truth. One should in the words of ex-atheist Antony Flew go "wherever the evidence leads" and trust that any mistakes honestly made in the process will be viewed mercifully by God.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 30, 2009

First thing I remember was askin' papa, why? ,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', someday you'll understand.

Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.

Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When daddy went away, he said, try to be a man,
And, someday you'll understand.

Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.

And then, one day in april, I wasn't even there,
For there were many things I didn't know.
A son was born to me; mama held his hand,
Sayin' someday you'll understand.

Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.

Think it was September, the year I went away,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And I still see him standing, tryin' to be a man;
I said, someday you'll understand.

Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes. [J C Fogerty]

And as many have presumed that this song was about war, here is John Fogerty the songwriter explaining the meaning of his song:

"Every parent tells their child "someday". "Gee daddy,can we go fishing?"... yeah, someday. My parents divorced when I was young and I ended up divorcing from my first wife... The song is basically talking about... here it happened to me when I was young and here I go doing the same damn thing. It's sad. I wanted to express what a kid feels, "Someday never comes."

Labels: