Why "We"?

John Kennedy did not refer to himself as "we". Neither did Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson or any other of the presidents of my childhood.  Today's politician is all about "we" when referring to himself (or, sadly herself as women have adopted the same habit).  Perhaps "we" makes sense when speaking broadly as in "we will address the issue of entitlements this year" or "we have received many letters".  But, "We are the strongest candidate and will make the best President'?  Does the speaker have a frog in his pocket?  When did the aversion arise to speaking in the first person?  It is generally considered that a first person address is will create intimacy between the speaker and audience.  The use of "we" diminishes the personal commitment.  It buffers the speaker from association with his own words.  Winston Churchill did not talk about "we" when making his commitment to defend his country.  Do today's politicians flinch from accountability?   Do they believe that leadership is a collective undertaking?  Do they fear the accusation of conceit?  Listen in this political season for a candidate willing to walk his talk.  Listen for "I". 

Who Do You Trust?

The mainstream media have been surprisingly quiet about news that many find interesting.  Last week more emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University.  Scientists affiliated with East Anglia have been in the forefront of climate research and include many of the recognized spokespeople for the belief that man-caused global warming is conclusively demonstrated by collected data and modelling.  Two years ago emails leaked from the same university fanned the flames of discord about the reliability of their conclusions and forecasts.  And now, a second round of emails that cast doubt on their projections.  You might be interested to read about these leaked documents.  Their authenticity is not questioned.  There are many bloggers and think tank scientists writing for electronic readers.  I am linking here to one that I think makes the case well for those who are troubled by the continuing evidence of hubris within the East Anglia fraternity. 

The Rule of God or the Rule of Man

Two items in the news this week trouble the Western mind.  In Afghanistan, the plight of a jailed rape victim draws attention to the condition of women in Islamic countries.  She was convicted of adultery because she was raped.  The child spawned by the act was born in jail.  Her pardon was from a 12 year sentence.  She was spared the fate of others who have been forced to marry their rapist.  Some have then been killed in an "honor" slaying because the original "crime" brought the family shame.

In Egypt the much heralded election favored not only the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, but also the ultraconservative Salafis.  Their leader, Sheik Shahat makes clear their view: "freedom restricted by Islamic Shariah, equality restricted by Islamic Shariah..." It is reported that the Salafis won 25% of the vote in the first round.  Those who love freedom do not understand the fervor for Islamic law.  In Egypt we may witness a different contest than we expected.  Not tyranny vs democracy, but the rule of god vs the rule of man.