SEO Site Manager

George Washington was born on his father’s plantation in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on February 22, 1732. His father, Augustine Washington was not only the leading planter in the area, but he also served as a justice of the county court.

George was born from Augustine’s second marriage, after his first wife died leaving two sons and daughter to be raised. George was the oldest of the six children Augustine had with his second wife, Mary Ball.

Very little is known about the kind of childhood George Washington had, and we know very little about the George Washington education.

In the state of Virginia, most children were either taught in local private schools or at home by private tutors. When boys turned seven, they would usually begin formal education. They began by learning arithmetic, reading, and writing.

Later, they were taught Latin and Greek, as well as geometry, bookkeeping, and surveying. Some wealthy planters would send their sons to England to finish their schooling.

George’s older half brothers went to England. Unfortunately, their father died before George could be sent to England.

George Washington education probably started with a school close to home for the first few years. Possibly he went to another school later. What we know for certain was that he was skilled in mathematics and learned surveying.

He didn’t learn Latin and Greek like many of the other gentlemen’s sons in the area. He never learned a foreign language or went to college. It is estimated that the George Washington education ended around the age of 15.

To the gentry class, social skills were one of the most important components in a young man’s or woman’s education. After George’s father passed away, he began spending more time in Mount Vernon with his older half brother Lawrence.

Lawrence helped in many ways, such as: mentoring and tutoring him in his studies, teaching him social graces, and introducing him into society.

The George Washington education was seen as defective his whole life. He made every effort to make up for all the things he didn’t learn in school by reading books and learning from people he respected.

Through the years of his personal studying, he built up an enormous library. He also subscribed to many newspapers. He also wrote a lot.

George may have placed such a high value on education because of his incomplete formal schooling. When he died, his will donated money for building a school in Alexandria, Virginia and for a national university.

Americans typically ignore the organizations who demonstrate on our city streets showing their anti-American hatred. Most people just assume that the streets are owned by these anti-American and un-patriotic groups.

As a soldier, I can’t believe or accept anything such as this. I don’t believe that any part of our cities or streets should be given to the enemy. I ignore the idea that we should, just because it has always been done that way.

The activities of the anti American crowd, if not confronted, can become a source of political strength and an un-educated false truth. If our citizens and Congress are not educated to the truth they can fall prey to the false truth.

In the 1960s and 1970s the late President Richard Nixon questioned the commitment of “The Silent Majority” even as the vocal minority used media collaboration to give the impression that they owned the streets, and thus, the moral high ground.

The result of the “Street” pro-communist guided policies of our Congress which concluded in the abandonment of our allies, turned a victory into defeat. “Kerry Lied, Millions Died” could have been the rallying cry of America.

The previous generation’s shameful history of ceding the battlefield on the home front, while our warriors were winning all the battles in Vietnam, will not be repeated as a stain and dishonor on current warriors defending our freedom.

Kerrys group of misfits, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War has morphed into a new group calling themselves the Iraq Veterans Agains the War or IVAW. Using Kerrys 1971 “Winter Soldier Investigation” as a model they plan to hold a new investigation on March the 14th, 2008 in Silver Springs, Maryland. They allege that our current US troops are a new generation of war criminals.

A new voice in being heard on the home front. Eagles UP, http://www.eaglesup.us along with many other pro troop groups will be in town to counter the lies that IVAW will try to sell to America. The truth will be heard and we will expose the IVAW for what it is. The anti America crowd will be required to prove their anti America banter. Support America, learn more at www.eaglesup.us

The minds of youth today have a serious problem, and it’s rooted in the demise of classical education. With the loss of classical education, we have also been robbed of the values, visions, and ideas of Rome and Greece. It was these values and ideas that shaped Western civilization and our nation.

It’s ironic that our own universities have begun scrutinizing these ideas, since very few people in America know about the West’s origination in ancient Greece.

Knowing these ethical theories and philosophies are vital to understanding and maintaining the freedoms we cherish. Sadly, Americans are moving further and further away from them.

Our nation was built on the foundation of Greek wisdom, and it’s important for us to remember that.

We applied many of these philosophies into our governmental make-up: a constitutional government, individual rights, freedom of expression, an open economy, civilian control of the military, separation of religious and political authority, private property, free scientific inquiry, and open dissent. These are some of the things that we need now more than ever in our changing culture.

We need to also remember that the Greeks insisted that these freedoms be monitored and controlled by civic responsibility, philanthropy, and an absolute world view.

The Greeks did not believe that life was rosy; instead, they saw it as momentary and tragic. Concepts like this along with self-criticism kept things in check.

The demise of classical education erases a complete way of looking at the world. Instead, the new lenses in which to look at the world consist of therapeutics, moral relativism, blind allegiance, and the adoration of material culture.

The Greeks gave us the means to change the physical and spiritual universe, either for good or ill. They also provided the means for us to control our most animalistic instincts in order to give toward the common good.

We can only fight the demise of classical education, or hope that when classics fall, the educational Dark Age will bring our children into a New Greek era.

If we don’t want our children to be a part of this overwhelming darkness, we need to find a way to teach our children how to think for themselves and how to be thankful to the Greeks for what they modeled for our nation.

The beautiful country that is Romania can also boast of a strong cultural heritage. This culture has emerged as a consequence of its distinct geographical features and its eventful history. It is a Latin country, where the flavors of the Roman past are still evident, but on the other hand, it follows the Orthodox Church.

Romanian culture bears the signature of both European Classical and Oriental cultures. Being essentially a traditional pastoral country, it also has a parallel in popular culture, which is both earthy and vibrant, rich in folklore. Urban culture developed around monasteries and the royal courts, and dealt with theosophy, ethics and jurisprudence. Among the cultural giants at the turn of the 18th century was Dimitre Cantemir, whose writings on the Turkish Empire earned a lot of fame.

Traditional culture was already vibrant at the time, and an example of the rich folklore of Romania is evident in the ballad “Miorita”, which is taught in junior school to enlighten young Romanians about their cultural heritage. The story is deeply rooted in Romanian belief in destiny. It is about three shepherds, two of whom turn against the third out of envy. They even planned to kill the third shepherd. He gets to know of the murder plot from a magical sheep in his flock, but instead of taking steps to save his life, he gets reconciled to his fate with stoic fatalism. The only wish he has is that if he is done to death, he should be buried in the meadows to be forever in proximity with his herd and his loyal sheepdogs.

Moreover, according to the historic background and ruler countries, Romanian culture received different influences: Turkish, Hungarian, and Austrian that is why its original culture mingled with the culture belonging to these countries. Furthermore, during the 19th century many young people went to study to France, therefore French culture has its importance and influence upon Romanian one.

Culture of Romanians is in general large. Even the most modest people know by heart poems written by Mihai Eminescu, who is the representative Romanian poet; they know replies from Ion Luca Caragiale’s plays or tell their kids stories written by Ion Creanga. Ion Luca Caragiale was the greatest Romanian playwright, whose irony addressed to a constantly corrupted society made him famous and his ideas are found out even nowadays especially on the Romanian political scene. It used to be described by him as noisy, pretentious, but ridiculous.

In addition, Ion Creanga was a great storyteller who wrote “Childhood Memories”. The charm of this book comes from the fact that any child can find himself in this author’s book. It used to be called the universal kid’s childhood.

Literature is not the only arena, where Romanian culture has shown its prowess. Romanian genius has made its mark in fine arts and performing arts as well. Painters like Nicolae Grigorescu, sculptors like Constantin Branusi and musicians like George Enescu have been the toast of the connoisseur and the layman alike. Georghe Zamfir has cast a spell over the world with the sound of his pan flute.

The god fearing people of Romania are proud of their cultural heritage. They make every conceivable effort to keep this heritage alive among future generations. They make sure that Romanian children imbibe this culture from their early days, whether in the form of folk ballads that their mothers sing softly as they lull the babies to sleep, or the classical arts and literature that the young ones are taught at school.

Getting to know the history of a nation is a must if you are interested in understanding its people. The history of Romania is the history of the events that took place from ancient times, i.e. the third century B.C. to the present day, when the modern day nation state of Romania that you see on the map evolved after going through many turmoils, and its boundaries got redrawn a number of times. It is also the history of its people, the very people, who gave Romania national identity and distinct cultural flavor.

At the end of the third century B.C., the region now covered by Romania was populated by people of Dacia, who were of Thracian origin. During the rule of Burebista (82 - 44 B.C.), the first state was founded in this region. The new state, however, had to face a formidable foe in the dominant power of that time, the Roman Empire. After a series of conflicts the state was finally annexed by the Romans during the reign of Emperor Trajan.

After that, migratory peoples ravaged this land, and then up to 1541 Romanians were controlled by Turkey. Between the tenth and the twelfth centuries Romania was ruled by Hungarians. In 1600, there were three counties in Romania: Moldavia, Transylvania and Walachia. They were united under the rule of Michael the Brave but for a short time. The next people, who ruled Romania, were the Austrians, until 1775 and in 1812 the Russians occupied them.

Furthermore, brief Romanian history lets you know that in 1848 there was a great revolution in order to win independence. Then, in 1859, Alexander John Cuza succeeded to unite Moldavia and Walachia.

Romania gained independence in the year 1877. During the First World War it sided with the Allies in 1916. At the end of the War in 1918, Transylvania was added to it.

Therefore, in 1916 Romania joined the First World War, as allied to Antanta. At the end of the war, the Austrian Hungarian and Russian empires disappeared and two other lands added to Romania: Bessarabia and Bucovina.

From 1938 to 1944 Romania was involved in the Second World War. During this time a king, who was forced to leave his throne in 1940 out of political reasons, ruled Romania. At the end of the Second World War, Transylvania belonged to Romania, but they lost part of Bucovina, Bessarabia and Dobrogea.

Though Romania became a part of the Soviet Bloc in the post war period, it still retained a degree of independence in its policies. When Nicolai Ceaucescu came to power in 1967, it seemed that dark ages had returned to haunt Romania. Romania was a socialist republic during his infamous regime, and all the negative experiences of a communist state seemed to converge on Romania. Widespread hunger and deprivation seemed to be the order of a day, even as his authoritarian rule clamped down on television and the freedom of expression. There was no freedom of worship either, and, in fact, many churches were pulled down.

However, nowadays this period is controversial, as there are nostalgic people who believe that nowadays things are worse in Romania. So in December 1989, on Christmas day, Nicolai Ceausescu and his wife Elena Ceausescu were executed after a sort of made up trial.

Romania today is a democratic republic, and since 1989 three presidents have come to power - Ion Iliescu, Emil Constantinescu, and the present incumbent since 2004, Trajan Basescu. Romania joined NATO in 2004 and became a member of the European Union in 2007.

This brief Romanian history can help you get a picture of events in this small area of the world.

I met Vahan Mirakian through a mutual friend, his attorney, almost two years ago for the first time in a small tourist town, a paradise of sorts on the Pacific near Tijuana called “San Antonio”. The town was gorgeous as was the ocean view from Vahan’s Villa patio. Vahan’s face looked old and tired, as if he had given up. I would find out later, he virtually had.

I was with a group of friends who all spoke Armenian and Russian fluently except for me. They took the time to intrepret the conversation for me. It was very intense. I had no idea what this man had been through.

Vahan had, a year ago, been arrested at LAX at age 70, handcuffed, dragged through the airport, made to sign papers he did not understand, detained, and then deported, and not allowed to return on a technical violation.

First let me allow, Vahan is no 9/11 box-cutter carrying terrorist. He is a delightful super-talented opera singer, known to be one of the top five tenors in the world, was a resident many years at the Russian Bolshoi, and scheduled to play at Carnegie Hall before his career was rudely interrupted.

Though he did not understand my English (even a lot of Americans don’t as I was raised in Mississippi, and I did not understand his Armenian, we understood each other and developed a great affection. Whatever words we did not understand were quickly interpreted by our mutual friends.

Later that year, I returned to Los Angeles to visit our mutual attorney friend, and we drove again to Mexico to visit Vahan. He was sadder than ever, and his complicated case was not looking good. His fiance Marika, a television producer and talk show host at Armenian TV in Glendale, had to commute every weekend she could to be with Vahan. The strain was beginning to wear on the relationship.

This time it was my 53rd birthday, and we went to a small restaurant called La Fonda’s, really more or less a dive with an American pop band and very good Mexican food. At the break, I mentioned to the manager that one of the world’s top opera stars was at our table and asked if he could sing accompanied by the band. “Of course,” said the manager. I had not even asked Vahan yet but he gladly agreed. He had not sung at any venue in over a year and music was and is his life. The minute Vahan opened his mouth to sing, there was a huge smile on his face. The energy could be felt all over the room. It was magic.

As it turned out, most the band opted out but the saxophone player was keen on doing a duo. When they started O Solo Mia, you could hear a pin drop in this packed establishment. It was surreal, like something out of a Salvador Dali painting. Nobody could believe their ears and kept yelling for an encore when it was over. Two women thought I was the manager and demanded another performance. They were livid that I would not let him sing again.

He dedicated the song to his loving friend, Rick London (me), and I was floored. There I sat in this little Mexican cafe, with friends from around the world, and a world famous opera singer had dedicated one of my favorite songs to me for my birthday, and with a voice like no other.

Today, nearly another year later, I received an email from our mutual attorney friend that his case cleared. He is a free citizen again in the U.S. and living in Los Angeles. He plans a nationwide and possibly a world tour at age 71. His voice is as clear as ever and I can hear the well-known masters every time he opens his mouth.

Vahan directs his own nonprofit foundation that helps disadvantaged Armenian youth find their voice in music. It does wonders for those who would never have a chance otherwise. I salute this man for hanging in there and putting up a fight for his justice. I salute the American system for allowing him another chance to make it in this great country.

America rarely lets me down, and it proved today, that it truly lives up to what is on the base of the Statue Of Liberty and in our Constitution. May Vahan live and sing to be 120.

I need to start off by pointing out that politically, I am more liberal than conservative. Nevertheless, I avoid liberal commentators. But I generally pay attention to George F. Will, even though I don’t always agree with his conservative views.

I will read George F. Will for a couple of reasons. One, I like his logical flow. I don’t always agree with his premises nor conclusions, but I cannot generally find a flaw in between the two.

But more important to me, George is an independent thinker. He is unafraid of disagreeing with other conservatives, and he will criticize elected conservatives. This independence is sorely lacking in the world, although it is very much needed. I mistrust anyone who always agrees with their party, regardless of their political stance.

However, I disagree with a current topic that George has taken up. He contends that higher education is dominated by liberals, and improperly so.

Consider that the branches of the US Armed Forces comprise a larger share of the US budget than any other office; add in Veterans Affairs, and it is even larger. Well, the Military, and perhaps as significantly, the many industries who support and earn a living from those Military dollars, are dominated by conservatives. Why isn’t that a problem?

Similarly, large corporations dominate much of our private life, through advertising alone, not to mention countless indirect ways. Corporations have even acquired most of our news and entertainment media over the past few decades, and not surprisingly, media have continually migrated toward the right. This corporate media is an influential, educational force equal to, or much greater than, our liberal colleges. and liberals are rare birds in the corporate boardroom today. But these do not bother Will, either.

And then there are our temples of worship. Christian Americans lean heavily to the right, and certainly the teachings of the church are a force to match higher eduction. But George isn’t so concerned about that influence.

So we have to ask Mr. Will if his concern about an influential part of American becoming too partisan? Or is he just worried that it aligns with the other party?

Next, there is a matter of critical thinking, which is essential not only to democracy, but also to free will, which is essential to religious doctrine. If we only expose our young people to one aspect of human political thought, only indoctrinate them in the ideology of one party, then we cannot say that we have faithfully discharged our obligations to our country, nor to our religions.

This is no small point. For their non-college lives, our students are immersed in corporate– i.e., conservative– content. How will we expose students to liberal ideas, if we don’t do it in college? How else will they ever get a chance make their own choice, and make up their own minds?

George Will cannot argue that we should deny students the same democratic freedoms, and the same religious freedoms, that he exercises.

Nor can he argue that this arrangement has hurt the democracy. Even though liberals dominate higher education, the electorate regularly alternates between the two parties, and the two political stances… suggesting that, in fact, they are sufficiently exposed to different ideas, that they are thinking for themselves; and that exposure to different doctrines produces a stronger, not a weaker, citizen.

Last, we need to consider what a university is for. If, as the name suggests, conservatives ‘conserve’– i.e., defend the traditional– then obviously, our universities need to be liberal. Our universities are our primary institutions of research, which means that one of their primary missions is precisely to question the traditional, to examine what is currently believed. If progress is a matter of constantly questioning the accepted and the obvious, then to be effective, our universities will always place themselves in opposition to conserved ideas.

And so, to be effective, our universities must be liberal.

So with all respect for George Will’s independence and incisiveness, he may wish to reconsider his stance on universities and their liberal ways. If they were otherwise, America would not be the country it is.

Debate, is it? Something valuable to discuss or purely media hype and political alarmism? It’s everywhere you look these days. Global warming. Climatic doom and gloom that appears to be all but irreversible. Should we believe everything we hear or read? Did Al Gore spend a lot of money making a documentary about global warming simply because he was sore about losing the Presidential election? What’s going on?

Anybody who knows (or doesn’t know), scientists and people like you and me, explain global warming as the process of Planet Earth’s temperatures running amuck, rising at rates that threaten with alarming possibilities. Our world is getting hotter. And who or what do we blame? Greenhouse gases appear to be the cause behind global warming, and these are the byproduct of thoughtless industries generating pollution without regard for consequences.

Let few worry about subtle temperature changes, but let the wise show concern when these temperature rises spin out of control. It’s hard to think of thirty or forty years into the future, but, planet-wise, this is indeed a very short timespan. Imagine the ground getting hotter. Storms becoming stronger. Earthquakes increasing in magnitude. Ice caps melting. Flooding on the rampage. Coastal towns and cities sinking underwater. Portions of California and Florida vanishing, portions of England and France. Ahh, so that’s what they mean by global warming!

The big question raised by global warming is: how does it impact us now? Proponents of the global warming theory point to the many changes that we are experiencing in weather conditions and in the Planet Earth’s temperatures. Skeptics claim that these changes are not necessarily linked to global warming– but often fail to provide a reasonable theory as to their cause. Enter the great debate. Those who advocate taking actions to reduce global warming are quick to provide that dramatic changes over two to four decades may not be readily visible to the naked eye, but will nevertheless devastate our children’s and grandchildren’s world.

The global warming debate is mostly populated by politicians, scientists and celebrities. Do we dare destroy our economy by taking actions against pollution and calamitous events that may not come to pass? Do we dare stand by and do nothing, ruining any hopes for a better tomorrow? Will we spend money foolishly to combat what might possibly be? Do we take the initiative and endeavor to protect our children’s and grandchildren’s futures?

So what are the tactics presently in use when discussing global warming? What’s behind the rhetoric? You can expect those who believe that global warmng is a real threat to appeal to your sense of decency and to your parental responsibility to offer your children and grandchildren a world that’s livable. You can expect those who believe global warming is a hoax to “attack the messenger” by engaging the testimony of pseudo-scientists to refute claims– and by attacking the credibility of those who favor taking actions to counter global warming trends. Listen enough to both sides and both approaches will become clear as you listen to the words.

For better or worse, we are not the only species on this planet. Regardless of anyone’s stance on global warming, animals who rely on coral reefs and our waters for their survival will suffer from the growing toxins that we constantly release into the ocean. Wildlife, too, will suffer. Think polar bears. Care to do something abut it?

Will you allow yourself to stand on the sidelines for global warming. Let’s hope not. Read the newspapers, watch the media coverage, search the Internet! Take the time to learn everything you can about an issue that affects the fate of our children and grandchildren.

Over and over, political activists are tackling the problem of long-term incumbents. Once someone has been elected– or worse, re-elected– they become difficult to unseat. Political observers contend that this situation leads to less effective government, and a little too much coziness between elected officials and their big donors and lobbyists.

More than one state has dealt with this concern by limiting the number of terms an official may serve. After so many years, you aren’t eligible for re-election. So far, except for the presidency, this effort has failed at the Federal level.

Not everyone is so sanguine about this movement. There is a certain skill that goes into public policy. The philosopher Burke noted that government has a learning curve, and that this education has real value. Certainly neophyte congressmen and legislators need most of their first term just to learn the system; any real competency takes two or more terms.

Currently in Louisiana, our own term limits have just started kicking in, producing a madhouse turnover of the legislative branch, and a loss of all real seniority. The consensus among the pundits is that the winners here will be the lobbyists: they are the only ones left with any long-term experience in state policy. Shifting from incumbent to lobbyists, somehow, does not seem to be what reformers were aiming for.

But there is another problem facing our government today: increasingly acrimonious partisanship. We have reached a point where trying to win the game has become more important than the game itself; victory for one party or the other is more important than being American. We are so busy trying to win skirmishes over our differences, we ignore the overwhelming number of issues where most of us agree.

Let me offer an idea that could address both problems: Extensible Limits. After the normal time of limited service, a candidate might be allowed to run again– IF the body in which he/she has served concurs, (by private vote of course). Each re-election would become increasingly difficult; the first Extension might require a 50% vote, the next, an additional 3%, and a required 3% increase for each successive re-election.

And for the executive office, perhaps candidacy beyond the basic term limits would require those percentages of both houses.

This has some very positive outcomes. Backbiting is punished, cooperation is rewarded. Politicians have to decide if they want to play hardball and settle for a few quick wins and then leave; or if they wish to really work at governance, at collaboration, and at consensus-building. I suspect the best and the brightest will choose the latter.

And the politicians who prefer ugly games will find themselves out of office, but quick. They will serve their terms, and be gone.

The elected officials who have the wisdom and the patience to build our country– and our world– will see their political strength increase rapidly. And all of them, the length of their service, and the height of their influence, will correlate directly with the effort, passion, and intelligence they bring to the job.

One of the constant complaints about biofuels is that they simply aren’t economically feasible. They aren’t competitive with petroleum without heavy government subsidies.

Where did we get the idea that fossil fuels aren’t underwritten by the federal government?

How much of Congress’ time is devoted to energy policy, to international regulations aimed at protecting the flow of oil, tax considerations and other regulations to insure that the oil companies can continue drilling?

How much of the State Department’s negotiations are designed around concerns about protecting our oil sources?

We frequently build partnerships with other countries, not based on mutual priorities, but on economic realities, which means oil. Don’t those short-term choices carry long-term costs?

And what part of our enormous military budget is expended to protect oil? How much of our global military strategy targets protecting overseas energy sources?

And on top of that, we have a War on Terror. Good, bad, or neutral, it’s highly unlikely that we would even have troops in the Middle East if not for fossil fuels.

For that matter, would there be a War on Terror, if not for our oil needs? Would radicals in so much of the Islamic world focus their destructive efforts towards America?

I’m not supporting terrorism. This is just an observation. Our ties to fossil fuels have hidden costs we need to start recognizing.

That’s not a criticism of oil, nor the companies who produce it. Oil was a historical necessity, and biofuels are new.

This is about recognizing changing realities. We can only buy oil from a few countries. We can get biofuel feedstocks from every country in the world.

And the more that we use biofuels, then the peripheral costs to oil– the indirect subsidies– will decrease.

So maybe, just maybe, plant and animal fuels are more affordable than fossil fuels, even before the recent rise in prices at the pump.