I haven't posted in awhile, the back injury kinda killed the groove. But I was back at work last week and I've had a thought festering that I want to write. So here goes...
Resolved:
The world should (and in many ways has) adopt a single currency for any and all international trade
I'll act like I'm debating you, and if you want, please post rebuttals in the comments section.
First of all, in order to fairly exchange goods, you and I must have a standard by which we value those goods. Many things affect that standard, such as the difficulty it was to create or harvest, the distance it had to travel to the exchange, the scarcity of it or its parts and the desire or need it satisfies. In other words, an economic system must exist. In the case of America, the dollar's value is determined by its borrowing power, spending power, and in what I believe is an increasingly mythical sense, gold.
When I trade with someone across national lines, the values needs a standard. Currently its determined by the exchange rates. International currency trading, a truly magical thing, compares the various value determiners and sets a comparison, i.e. $1.38 for € 1 (Euro). I believe this is stupid.
I believe a single currency, backed by 6 major production categories and derived from the 5 strongest economies across those categories, would make life much simpler. It would be reevaluated every year by a committee of bankers and businessmen at the UN. Every 4 years, alternating the seats, half of this 20-25 individual committee would be elected from the top 100 economies in the UN, determined by the committee itself. The first committee would be selected by a special convention of economists and world leaders but I'm wondering off my original trail of thought.
The 6 major categories would be: Energy, Agriculture, Raw Materials, Defense, Technology, Non-Consumables (Textiles, Infrastructure, Construction, Etc.)
Each nation would be compared both on a gross evaluation and a per capita evaluation per category; and a formula, which I would be unqualified to write but probably would enjoy trying, would determine that nation's TCV (Total Currency Value). The top 5 in composite TCV score, across all the categories, would be the economies that would back the currency.
Over the course of 10 years, each UN member nation would begin printing the new currency and supplying it to their banks. The various nation's current currencies would be rated against the new composite currency much like the dollar and euro are compared today. As the old currency is spent, slowly but surely all of it would be absorbed into the banking system and exchanged into the World Bank for the new stuff, at whatever rate that particular country's currency was valued at. The World Bank exists, look it up.
After that, all international transactions, and if a country is particularly excited about the idea, even domestic transactions, would be carried out using the new universal coin. I think a good name would be Terra. That way you could have a Centerra (hundred Terra bill), Militerra (million Terra bill), Decaterra (10) etc. All coinage, or fractions of a Terra, would be eliminated. Rounding to the nearest 1 Terra would be mandatory. Imagine the simplicity!
Along with the simplicity a universal currency provides, it also allows the UN to level meaningful sanctions and penalties on non-participatory governments. What is currently a laughable slap on the wrist would become an economical nightmare. Truly self-sustaining economies can no longer exist, but with a universal coin, they'd be illegal.
I see you Isolationist, squirming and fuming at my ideas. I've got a simile for ya.
Isolationism is a like a man choosing to live on a secluded island. He may like it at first, but eventually he'll either go crazy, starve, die from exposure, or get eaten by a wild animal.
Nations can do those things too. A nation going crazy, is when the culture develops fanaticism, much like the Japanese pre-WWII. With no global-sense, they had been bred to believe they were the center of the universe and their emperor was divinity. Eventually that lead to rampant imperialism and sneak attacking the largest 2 countries in the world (China and the USA) (make it 3 and include the Ruso-Japanese war). Sounds like insanity to me.
A nation can also starve or die from exposure. More obvious here, but not having the necessary things, whether they be food or energy or guns, is eventually disastrous. Lack of something important is the primary cause for a large majority of international conflicts, which are more commonly known as wars.
Finally, nations can get eaten. When you choose to not be apart of the group, eventually the group will come take your stuff. Not saying its right, just saying that's how it is.
So, rebut away if you dare, but in the meantime vote for me for UN Secretary General so I can get the ball rolling on this thing.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
First Cause
To continue crafting an alternative history I must find the cause of the event I want to remove. The larger the event the more complicated its causation. The American Civil War had a massive impact on the world as we know it and as expected its causation is extremely complicated. We have to go back to the very roots of America to find an event, a cast of characters, a point in time when the conflict began to develop. I've thought through several choices, I'll list them and the pros and cons and reveal my choice.
I could remove Abraham Lincoln from history. His inauguration is the immediate cause for war. The Confederate leadership issued an ultimatum and Lincoln's administration ignored it. However, even removing a man as influential as Lincoln would be far too late to stop the war. The conflict had reached an inevitability which one man could not stop. However, his desire to preserve the union and strong leadership would not necessarily mean he'd launch the war if the situation wasn't as tense as it actually was. So, Lincoln isn't the answer.
I could remove slavery. But that isn't feasible. Slavery is a global occurrence. Nearly every culture has been impacted by it in some way. Arbitrarily removing something like slavery, such as religion, writing, or adding something like magic or alien contact is the realm of fantasy not alternative history. So slavery stays.
There's a 3 pronged "possibilities" tree which the history of the United States has in relation to the slavery question. Slavery, freedom or compromise. Actual history shows our leaders choosing the compromise path again and again till it finally exploded into the bloodiest war in our nation's history. That leaves either a wholesale commitment to either slavery or freedom. As we've established already, I do not find it feasible to eliminate slavery from the question entirely, but I also do not believe slavery is just or sustainable. So, I don't believe its feasible that the early American leadership would've constitutionalized slavery. Even if they did, given enough time, every culture's slaves have risen up to find their freedom. Therefore, I don't believe that truly gives us an America devoid of a Civil War, it just gives an America with a massive slave rebellion.
In conclusion, freedom, the eradication of slavery in America, must occur another way. Otherwise, an armed conflict cannot be avoided.
One of my heroes, a southern gentleman and brilliant politician, may be the key to this problem. John C Calhoun, Vice President under Andrew Jackson, was part of the first big secession battle. Had Jackson not been one of the strongest Presidents our country has seen, he may have succeeded seceding...say that 5 times fast. Calhoun was the strongest voice for the slave owning south for years, remove him and the congressional pressure would lean free. Of course, a contrarian would suggest that the void created by Calhoun's absence would be filled by an equally as ardent "slave-state" voice.
Or perhaps Henry Clay is the answer. The "Great Compromiser" ran for president three times, once in 1824 tilting the balance for JQ Adams, once in 1832 getting pounded by Andrew Jackson and again much later in 1844 as his party dwindled and died. Say he ran in '40, against Van Buren.
If Henry Clay had been elected President the American Civil War would not have occurred.
Next week I'll try to prove that virtually indefensibly statement.
Braves magic number is 6. I really hope we resign Elliot Johnson, the guy is legit.
I could remove Abraham Lincoln from history. His inauguration is the immediate cause for war. The Confederate leadership issued an ultimatum and Lincoln's administration ignored it. However, even removing a man as influential as Lincoln would be far too late to stop the war. The conflict had reached an inevitability which one man could not stop. However, his desire to preserve the union and strong leadership would not necessarily mean he'd launch the war if the situation wasn't as tense as it actually was. So, Lincoln isn't the answer.
I could remove slavery. But that isn't feasible. Slavery is a global occurrence. Nearly every culture has been impacted by it in some way. Arbitrarily removing something like slavery, such as religion, writing, or adding something like magic or alien contact is the realm of fantasy not alternative history. So slavery stays.
There's a 3 pronged "possibilities" tree which the history of the United States has in relation to the slavery question. Slavery, freedom or compromise. Actual history shows our leaders choosing the compromise path again and again till it finally exploded into the bloodiest war in our nation's history. That leaves either a wholesale commitment to either slavery or freedom. As we've established already, I do not find it feasible to eliminate slavery from the question entirely, but I also do not believe slavery is just or sustainable. So, I don't believe its feasible that the early American leadership would've constitutionalized slavery. Even if they did, given enough time, every culture's slaves have risen up to find their freedom. Therefore, I don't believe that truly gives us an America devoid of a Civil War, it just gives an America with a massive slave rebellion.
In conclusion, freedom, the eradication of slavery in America, must occur another way. Otherwise, an armed conflict cannot be avoided.
One of my heroes, a southern gentleman and brilliant politician, may be the key to this problem. John C Calhoun, Vice President under Andrew Jackson, was part of the first big secession battle. Had Jackson not been one of the strongest Presidents our country has seen, he may have succeeded seceding...say that 5 times fast. Calhoun was the strongest voice for the slave owning south for years, remove him and the congressional pressure would lean free. Of course, a contrarian would suggest that the void created by Calhoun's absence would be filled by an equally as ardent "slave-state" voice.
Or perhaps Henry Clay is the answer. The "Great Compromiser" ran for president three times, once in 1824 tilting the balance for JQ Adams, once in 1832 getting pounded by Andrew Jackson and again much later in 1844 as his party dwindled and died. Say he ran in '40, against Van Buren.
If Henry Clay had been elected President the American Civil War would not have occurred.
Next week I'll try to prove that virtually indefensibly statement.
Braves magic number is 6. I really hope we resign Elliot Johnson, the guy is legit.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
What If...
I am a History nerd. I am flattered when someone introduces me as a "History Buff" but I've known too many brilliant Historians to consider myself in any way extraordinary in relation to my knowledge of history. One of the first things I think of to relieve stress, occupy boredom or just liven up an hour or two by myself is reading alternative histories. Its a beautiful combination of history, fiction, biography and fantasy. The best alternative histories are more than stories, but actually an exploration of cause and effect. One afternoon I lost 4 or 5 hours to a history of Asia and Europe without Genghis Khan. Amazing. I've decided I'm going to try and craft an alternative history. The easy, and frequently visited, options are "What If Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg" "What If the British hadn't escaped at Dunkirk" "What If any number of extraordinary military circumstances in the American Revolution hadn't occurred" I'd like to try something a little different.
What If...the American Civil War had not occurred, but instead the United States and President Breckinridge were major players in Imperialism. American global dominance began a little early. Instead of a quarter of a generation wiped out killing each other, instead America turned its focus elsewhere. By the time Teddy comes along, American colonies are thriving in the Caribbean, West Africa and South America. He kicks it into overdrive, establishes the Roosevelt Doctrine, a 2nd Manifest Destiny, declaring that the American Constitution is the only perfect form of government and needs to be shared. Soon Japan, a large chunk of Saharan Africa and Mexico elect to be states. The states are grouped into provinces and the provincial governors gain considerable power. Slavery, as defined by constitutional amendment, was permitted but controlled. As the European conflicts increased in scope, the American holdings were solidified. Imperialism coupled with immigration results in quickly overloading the cities of the continental US. As industry and communication develop, the various "provinces" begin to find unique specialties. Just as the power and uniqueness begin to pull the US apart, the global struggles ironically launched on the pretense of balance, unify and strengthen the superpower. And so on...
Thursday I'll try to flesh out some details. Bare with me, this stuff is pretty difficult.
Braves magic number is 7.
What If...the American Civil War had not occurred, but instead the United States and President Breckinridge were major players in Imperialism. American global dominance began a little early. Instead of a quarter of a generation wiped out killing each other, instead America turned its focus elsewhere. By the time Teddy comes along, American colonies are thriving in the Caribbean, West Africa and South America. He kicks it into overdrive, establishes the Roosevelt Doctrine, a 2nd Manifest Destiny, declaring that the American Constitution is the only perfect form of government and needs to be shared. Soon Japan, a large chunk of Saharan Africa and Mexico elect to be states. The states are grouped into provinces and the provincial governors gain considerable power. Slavery, as defined by constitutional amendment, was permitted but controlled. As the European conflicts increased in scope, the American holdings were solidified. Imperialism coupled with immigration results in quickly overloading the cities of the continental US. As industry and communication develop, the various "provinces" begin to find unique specialties. Just as the power and uniqueness begin to pull the US apart, the global struggles ironically launched on the pretense of balance, unify and strengthen the superpower. And so on...
Thursday I'll try to flesh out some details. Bare with me, this stuff is pretty difficult.
Braves magic number is 7.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The 5 Greatest Generals and some other stuff
Day 13 out of work. Still in pain, but the doc adjusted my meds so I'm not going all hallucinogenic anymore. Twice a week PT and a scheduled visit with a Specialist which leaves hours of sitting around in pain. Not being at work is, as expected, mostly nice. I get to be with my wife and child spending the days quite frivolously. However, boredom has set in. That and uncertainty due to being on comp meaning no 2nd job and no OT which means less income which means tighter budget. That being said, I'll try to keep my complaining to a minimum.
"Real Life" has taught me a few things. Surprising right? But one of the things I've learned best is that everything happens at once. Every time something big happens, whether it be financial, social, spiritual, work-related or family-related, a bunch of other big things happen in several of the other facets of life. We can go months at a time without changing even the slightest aspect of our routine, then BAM all the dominoes start crashing around. That is happening now.
I kicked around devoting this post to the dominoes that are crashing around us but instead wanted to think about something else for a little bit. So here's one of the few topics of conversation I can carry for hours: Military History.
The 5 Greatest Generals in the History of the World.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
This is not a slam dunk, nobody else is close, type of choice. The next 4 guys have solid arguments in their favor. However, Napoleon conquered the majority of Europe in a time when armies were both large and developed. Trains made bringing a sizable amount of troops from miles away a tactical possibility. Gunpowder made numbers mean less and tactics mean more. The warfare of the Napoleonic Wars (gotta mean something when you name the era after him) was the perfect type of warfare to display a general's abilities. Bonaparte wasn't just a brilliant tactician, he also was an accomplished artillery engineer and possibly the greatest motivator of all time. The men who lead his armies were every bit as tactically brilliant as Napoleon, but many of them not only blindly followed his orders but also accepted exile along side their Emperor. Napoleon was at the same time the best and worst thing to come out of the French Revolution. He embodied the end result of unbridled ambition coupled with endless genius. His weakness? He trusted Spain too much and couldn't muster a decent Navy. In my humble opinion, had he fielded a decent Navy he would have conquered the British Iles. Even if everything else goes precisely as it did, with the Russian counterattack and Spanish rebellion squeezing the French into submission, the world would have been profoundly altered. Then, after defeat and exile, he managed to scare the world within an inch of its life and in a very short time united all of Europe against him. What a legacy.
Tactics: 10 (Movements during battle)
Strategy: 10 (The Plan of Battle)
Personal Prowess: 8 (Individual combat)
Leadership: 10 (Who he led and how they followed)
Contemporaries: 7 (Who he defeated and how badly)
Legacy: 10 (How he will be remembered)
2. Alexander III the Great
Hard to be better than this guy. He has the distinction of being the first great conqueror. There were conquerors before him but none of them did it like he did. None of them were great. Not only are his tactical skills virtually unmatched, he managed to forge an Empire which he personally ruled for only a few years. You might suggest that is a weakness, however Alexander was such a brilliant manager, he unified as he conquered, something no one else has ever accomplished (save perhaps the Mongols who might appear in this list). Who he defeated is not an impressive list, how badly he defeated them is astounding. Alexander would go into battle with 10-1, 8-1 and 5-1 odds and the end results would be ridiculous. There are recorded casualty numbers from battles, when hand-to-hand combat was the common method, where Alexander would lose 100 or so men while he opponent lost thousands. This is hardly believable. Is it because the Macedonians were somehow better soldiers? I doubt it, Alexander always supplemented his armies with Mercenaries and conquered subjects. It was because Alexander's genius and according to records personal bravery was incredible. Is it possible Alexander's incredible feats are merely a product of "he who wins writes the History books" or however that goes? Yeah, most likely. But he won. A lot. Every major civilization which means anything to the development of Eurasian History that existed prior to Alexander swore fealty to him by the end of his life. Greece, Persia and Egypt, a venerable group, were, in no uncertain terms, crushed by Macedon. While Napoleon had a more impressive military career, Alexander had more impact on Europe and the World than perhaps any single man.
Tactics: 10
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 10
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 4
Legacy: 10
3. Genghis Khan
Theme here. All three of these guys were Emperors in the truest sense of the word. All three controlled an expansive territory on which several different distinct cultures coexisted with one ruler. If the list were ranked by Empire size, this guy would be at the top (below a King George perhaps). Also, if we were ranking by Empire unity, the length it lasted or the uniqueness of its construction nobody could stack up to Genghis' Mongols. The Khan's success was due in part to a group of fantastic generals and a form of combat the world had never seen. Cavalry Archers would be a fearsome thing to encounter today, let alone when Genghis ruled. The Mongols are the only group to successfully conquer China, they rolled across what is today Russia and Kazakhstan, smashed Persia and invaded Europe. Hungary and what would eventually be Poland slowed their advance just enough for Genghis to die and the expansion to stall. The Khan's genius seamlessly transitioned from a tribal leader unifying the Mongols to an Emperor dominating an Empire of which it was said "a virgin with two pouches of money could walk from one end to the other without fearing for anything" or whatever, not very good at those. In any case the guy forged the largest Empire in the History of the World.
Tactics: 7
Strategy: 9
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 10
4. Hannibal
This guy gets the most points for who he was beating. Absolutely dominated the Roman Empire. Read that again but stress the last 2 words. Roman Empire. As far as military empires go, nothing has ever existed comparable to the Roman Empire. Something which only a Military History nerd could ever imagine but would be one of the coolest things to possibly simulate would be the Caesars vs the Khans. Hannibal shows us what no other enemy of Rome could show, the Romans were beatable. Not just beatable, 3 of the 5 worst losses in Roman history were to this guy. The term "textbook" perfectly describes the utter genius Hannibal put on display against, again, the greatest army yet assembled. Crossing the Alps is probably the greatest single feat a general has ever attempted. It is similar to a group of Generals thinking its a good idea to assault a beachhead with thousands of soldiers during WWII. The only difference is Normandy had some statistical legitimacy. Hannibal took a group of soldiers and animals and fought his way through an extremely dangerous mountainous region and arrived in enemy territory with enough army to not once but twice embarrass the Romans and even threaten the capital of the greatest Empire in the World at the time. Easier said than done. He belongs on this list despite only being a general and having a very short time in the spotlight of history.
Tactics: 9
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 9
Contemporaries: 9
Legacy: 8
5. Douglas MacArthur
With all due respect to Julius Caesar, this guy rounds off my list. The Western theatre in WWII has several impressive generals, Von Runstadt, Kesselring, Rommel, Patton, Model, Manstein, Bradley, Eisenhower, Montgomery etc. The Eastern theatre has MacArthur. Not only did he coordinate the army side of the brilliant island-hopping strategy he also governed in Japan during the post-war period and conquered North Korea. Had MacArthur been given full reign in Korea, WWIII could've broken out, but also, MacArthur would've crushed the DPRK. The stubbornness that made him a great commander ended his career when he went behind the President's back. Not a good move. But something I'm positive every other member of this list would've done. In the age of communications, troop supply, air forces and international coalition combat, MacArthur stands alone. I also did a project on him in 8th grade so I might be biased.
Tactics: 8
Strategy: 10
Personal Prowess: 4
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 9
There you have it. Now back to "real life" I guess.
Braves cooling off, but not crashing...return of Maholm, Laird and Schafer tempered by the loss of Heyward and struggles for Walden and the rest of the back end of the bullpen. I hope that if we kick it into cruise control we can relight the fire come October.
"Real Life" has taught me a few things. Surprising right? But one of the things I've learned best is that everything happens at once. Every time something big happens, whether it be financial, social, spiritual, work-related or family-related, a bunch of other big things happen in several of the other facets of life. We can go months at a time without changing even the slightest aspect of our routine, then BAM all the dominoes start crashing around. That is happening now.
I kicked around devoting this post to the dominoes that are crashing around us but instead wanted to think about something else for a little bit. So here's one of the few topics of conversation I can carry for hours: Military History.
The 5 Greatest Generals in the History of the World.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
This is not a slam dunk, nobody else is close, type of choice. The next 4 guys have solid arguments in their favor. However, Napoleon conquered the majority of Europe in a time when armies were both large and developed. Trains made bringing a sizable amount of troops from miles away a tactical possibility. Gunpowder made numbers mean less and tactics mean more. The warfare of the Napoleonic Wars (gotta mean something when you name the era after him) was the perfect type of warfare to display a general's abilities. Bonaparte wasn't just a brilliant tactician, he also was an accomplished artillery engineer and possibly the greatest motivator of all time. The men who lead his armies were every bit as tactically brilliant as Napoleon, but many of them not only blindly followed his orders but also accepted exile along side their Emperor. Napoleon was at the same time the best and worst thing to come out of the French Revolution. He embodied the end result of unbridled ambition coupled with endless genius. His weakness? He trusted Spain too much and couldn't muster a decent Navy. In my humble opinion, had he fielded a decent Navy he would have conquered the British Iles. Even if everything else goes precisely as it did, with the Russian counterattack and Spanish rebellion squeezing the French into submission, the world would have been profoundly altered. Then, after defeat and exile, he managed to scare the world within an inch of its life and in a very short time united all of Europe against him. What a legacy.
Tactics: 10 (Movements during battle)
Strategy: 10 (The Plan of Battle)
Personal Prowess: 8 (Individual combat)
Leadership: 10 (Who he led and how they followed)
Contemporaries: 7 (Who he defeated and how badly)
Legacy: 10 (How he will be remembered)
2. Alexander III the Great
Hard to be better than this guy. He has the distinction of being the first great conqueror. There were conquerors before him but none of them did it like he did. None of them were great. Not only are his tactical skills virtually unmatched, he managed to forge an Empire which he personally ruled for only a few years. You might suggest that is a weakness, however Alexander was such a brilliant manager, he unified as he conquered, something no one else has ever accomplished (save perhaps the Mongols who might appear in this list). Who he defeated is not an impressive list, how badly he defeated them is astounding. Alexander would go into battle with 10-1, 8-1 and 5-1 odds and the end results would be ridiculous. There are recorded casualty numbers from battles, when hand-to-hand combat was the common method, where Alexander would lose 100 or so men while he opponent lost thousands. This is hardly believable. Is it because the Macedonians were somehow better soldiers? I doubt it, Alexander always supplemented his armies with Mercenaries and conquered subjects. It was because Alexander's genius and according to records personal bravery was incredible. Is it possible Alexander's incredible feats are merely a product of "he who wins writes the History books" or however that goes? Yeah, most likely. But he won. A lot. Every major civilization which means anything to the development of Eurasian History that existed prior to Alexander swore fealty to him by the end of his life. Greece, Persia and Egypt, a venerable group, were, in no uncertain terms, crushed by Macedon. While Napoleon had a more impressive military career, Alexander had more impact on Europe and the World than perhaps any single man.
Tactics: 10
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 10
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 4
Legacy: 10
3. Genghis Khan
Theme here. All three of these guys were Emperors in the truest sense of the word. All three controlled an expansive territory on which several different distinct cultures coexisted with one ruler. If the list were ranked by Empire size, this guy would be at the top (below a King George perhaps). Also, if we were ranking by Empire unity, the length it lasted or the uniqueness of its construction nobody could stack up to Genghis' Mongols. The Khan's success was due in part to a group of fantastic generals and a form of combat the world had never seen. Cavalry Archers would be a fearsome thing to encounter today, let alone when Genghis ruled. The Mongols are the only group to successfully conquer China, they rolled across what is today Russia and Kazakhstan, smashed Persia and invaded Europe. Hungary and what would eventually be Poland slowed their advance just enough for Genghis to die and the expansion to stall. The Khan's genius seamlessly transitioned from a tribal leader unifying the Mongols to an Emperor dominating an Empire of which it was said "a virgin with two pouches of money could walk from one end to the other without fearing for anything" or whatever, not very good at those. In any case the guy forged the largest Empire in the History of the World.
Tactics: 7
Strategy: 9
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 10
4. Hannibal
This guy gets the most points for who he was beating. Absolutely dominated the Roman Empire. Read that again but stress the last 2 words. Roman Empire. As far as military empires go, nothing has ever existed comparable to the Roman Empire. Something which only a Military History nerd could ever imagine but would be one of the coolest things to possibly simulate would be the Caesars vs the Khans. Hannibal shows us what no other enemy of Rome could show, the Romans were beatable. Not just beatable, 3 of the 5 worst losses in Roman history were to this guy. The term "textbook" perfectly describes the utter genius Hannibal put on display against, again, the greatest army yet assembled. Crossing the Alps is probably the greatest single feat a general has ever attempted. It is similar to a group of Generals thinking its a good idea to assault a beachhead with thousands of soldiers during WWII. The only difference is Normandy had some statistical legitimacy. Hannibal took a group of soldiers and animals and fought his way through an extremely dangerous mountainous region and arrived in enemy territory with enough army to not once but twice embarrass the Romans and even threaten the capital of the greatest Empire in the World at the time. Easier said than done. He belongs on this list despite only being a general and having a very short time in the spotlight of history.
Tactics: 9
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 9
Contemporaries: 9
Legacy: 8
5. Douglas MacArthur
With all due respect to Julius Caesar, this guy rounds off my list. The Western theatre in WWII has several impressive generals, Von Runstadt, Kesselring, Rommel, Patton, Model, Manstein, Bradley, Eisenhower, Montgomery etc. The Eastern theatre has MacArthur. Not only did he coordinate the army side of the brilliant island-hopping strategy he also governed in Japan during the post-war period and conquered North Korea. Had MacArthur been given full reign in Korea, WWIII could've broken out, but also, MacArthur would've crushed the DPRK. The stubbornness that made him a great commander ended his career when he went behind the President's back. Not a good move. But something I'm positive every other member of this list would've done. In the age of communications, troop supply, air forces and international coalition combat, MacArthur stands alone. I also did a project on him in 8th grade so I might be biased.
Tactics: 8
Strategy: 10
Personal Prowess: 4
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 9
There you have it. Now back to "real life" I guess.
Braves cooling off, but not crashing...return of Maholm, Laird and Schafer tempered by the loss of Heyward and struggles for Walden and the rest of the back end of the bullpen. I hope that if we kick it into cruise control we can relight the fire come October.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Trayvon: Why I don't care
The title is a little harsh. A person was killed, this is both sad and something we should all want to prevent from ever happening. However, in contrast with the DOMA case, the Trayvon case has little or no bearing on the operation of this country or even the history of it. Simply, a white man, with neighborhood watch responsibilities, believed a young black man to be suspicious. The white guy confronted the black kid, a struggle ensued, and the white guy shot and killed the black kid. This probably happens 200 times a year, maybe more. Does that make it ok? No. Does it prevent it from being national news? I would think so. Not only was this national news, but Pres Obama used it to both enhance his candidacy during the election and to further his agenda once in office.
First of all, was Zimmerman right to shoot Trayvon? According to a Jury of his peers, yes. According to common sense, I don't know I wasn't in that position. Does he have the right to protect himself? Yes. Should he? Yes. Should Trayvon have had the right to protect himself too? Of course. Protection is inherently defensive. The bloodthirsty and expansionist try to soothe their consciences by declaring offensive provocations are "protection." That being said, the potential for offensive military action, from the national to the personal, does not preclude or exclude the use of that potential for defensive action. In other words, just because Z had a gun doesn't mean he confronted T with the intention of shooting him. But enough about the actual case, as I said, I don't care.
What I do care about, is the message being sent. I tweeted a week or so ago that I was getting mixed signals. The media was pushing three separate, and non-congruent narratives each with their own nasty little agendas. The first was GUN CONTROL. If he hadn't had a gun, they might have beat each other up but then we could ask them both how it started, we could sort it out, and nobody would have died! Maybe, or quite possibly, the suspicious person could've been illegally carrying a weapon and the citizen who had signed up for protective responsibility would've been helpless. We probably would've missed that court case.
The second was RACE. Obama fueled this, I can't decide if it was intentional, but it hardly matters now. Look, if a white guy accosts me, and I feel threatened, I'm going to protect myself to the same degree I would if an Asian, black man, Arab or Canadian was accosting me. This is/should be true for anyone. However, maybe Z is a racist. Maybe Z was singling out T because he was black. THIS IS NOT A CRIME. This cannot be a crime. Crimes of the mind are 1) impossible to prove 2) impossible to enforce and 3) impossible to define. Hatred cannot be contested with more hatred. Some really intelligent men gave some great speeches on this topic about 60 years ago. They happened to be black.
The third was CORRUPT/INEPT JUSTICE SYSTEM. Really? This made me chuckle. The media, who was literally leading the anti-Z rallies and calling for his head on a platter, made sure the public would be devoid of any moral dilemma when the jury "got it wrong." Of course they'll get it wrong. They're primarily white, they're primarily in favor of guns, they're primarily X, Y, Z. The jury is handcuffed by bad laws. The jury is desensitized to violence. Blah blah blah. If you don't like it, move to a country where a cop decides he wants your car so he pulls you over and impounds it. Move to a country where the primary income for law enforcement is bribery from organized crime. Move to a country that is dependent on traveling judges, thinking more about their chances to gain political power than anything resembling justice. The jury system is obviously flawed, anything that relies on human reasoning will be. However, until we create the positronic (really Internet? this is a word) brain we have to rely on our own. The jury system is the most advanced and the most successful justice system humanity has ever seen. Stop whining that you didn't get your way.
In conclusion. I don't care, and neither should you.
Happy anniversary to my parents. Yesterday they celebrated 29 years. I hope to do that, though I'd hate to be that old. :)
Thursday I'll preview the SS lessons my dad has asked my to cover the following 2 Sundays. I find if I write about something I'll be more comfortable talking about it.
Braves have been as inconsistent as ever, dropping 2 of 3 from the White Sox and losing Maholm to the DL in the process. We did get the Mets last night though with 2 in the 9th to win 2-1. We called up Kameron Loe as well. I hate Kameron Loe, so I'm rooting for him to change my mind, but he's going to have to do pretty well to have a chance. Also. Braun has been suspended 100 games. If Selig is really all about ending steroid use, Braun's massive contract should be voided and the Brewers should either be given salary relief from the league for cutting him or be charged double for keeping him. The league needs to make the organizations who continue to hire the cheaters pay too. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm already thickening my skin for the first Brave to get caught. Some minor leaguers have but no pros as of yet. 3 more against the Mets and then a killer series against the All-World St Louis Cardinals. NLCS preview?
First of all, was Zimmerman right to shoot Trayvon? According to a Jury of his peers, yes. According to common sense, I don't know I wasn't in that position. Does he have the right to protect himself? Yes. Should he? Yes. Should Trayvon have had the right to protect himself too? Of course. Protection is inherently defensive. The bloodthirsty and expansionist try to soothe their consciences by declaring offensive provocations are "protection." That being said, the potential for offensive military action, from the national to the personal, does not preclude or exclude the use of that potential for defensive action. In other words, just because Z had a gun doesn't mean he confronted T with the intention of shooting him. But enough about the actual case, as I said, I don't care.
What I do care about, is the message being sent. I tweeted a week or so ago that I was getting mixed signals. The media was pushing three separate, and non-congruent narratives each with their own nasty little agendas. The first was GUN CONTROL. If he hadn't had a gun, they might have beat each other up but then we could ask them both how it started, we could sort it out, and nobody would have died! Maybe, or quite possibly, the suspicious person could've been illegally carrying a weapon and the citizen who had signed up for protective responsibility would've been helpless. We probably would've missed that court case.
The second was RACE. Obama fueled this, I can't decide if it was intentional, but it hardly matters now. Look, if a white guy accosts me, and I feel threatened, I'm going to protect myself to the same degree I would if an Asian, black man, Arab or Canadian was accosting me. This is/should be true for anyone. However, maybe Z is a racist. Maybe Z was singling out T because he was black. THIS IS NOT A CRIME. This cannot be a crime. Crimes of the mind are 1) impossible to prove 2) impossible to enforce and 3) impossible to define. Hatred cannot be contested with more hatred. Some really intelligent men gave some great speeches on this topic about 60 years ago. They happened to be black.
The third was CORRUPT/INEPT JUSTICE SYSTEM. Really? This made me chuckle. The media, who was literally leading the anti-Z rallies and calling for his head on a platter, made sure the public would be devoid of any moral dilemma when the jury "got it wrong." Of course they'll get it wrong. They're primarily white, they're primarily in favor of guns, they're primarily X, Y, Z. The jury is handcuffed by bad laws. The jury is desensitized to violence. Blah blah blah. If you don't like it, move to a country where a cop decides he wants your car so he pulls you over and impounds it. Move to a country where the primary income for law enforcement is bribery from organized crime. Move to a country that is dependent on traveling judges, thinking more about their chances to gain political power than anything resembling justice. The jury system is obviously flawed, anything that relies on human reasoning will be. However, until we create the positronic (really Internet? this is a word) brain we have to rely on our own. The jury system is the most advanced and the most successful justice system humanity has ever seen. Stop whining that you didn't get your way.
In conclusion. I don't care, and neither should you.
Happy anniversary to my parents. Yesterday they celebrated 29 years. I hope to do that, though I'd hate to be that old. :)
Thursday I'll preview the SS lessons my dad has asked my to cover the following 2 Sundays. I find if I write about something I'll be more comfortable talking about it.
Braves have been as inconsistent as ever, dropping 2 of 3 from the White Sox and losing Maholm to the DL in the process. We did get the Mets last night though with 2 in the 9th to win 2-1. We called up Kameron Loe as well. I hate Kameron Loe, so I'm rooting for him to change my mind, but he's going to have to do pretty well to have a chance. Also. Braun has been suspended 100 games. If Selig is really all about ending steroid use, Braun's massive contract should be voided and the Brewers should either be given salary relief from the league for cutting him or be charged double for keeping him. The league needs to make the organizations who continue to hire the cheaters pay too. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm already thickening my skin for the first Brave to get caught. Some minor leaguers have but no pros as of yet. 3 more against the Mets and then a killer series against the All-World St Louis Cardinals. NLCS preview?
Thursday, July 18, 2013
DOMA: Why I care
The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down in part just a few short weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Anytime SCOTUS makes a decision its historical, but this one in particular marks a shift in the official stance of the government towards various non-traditional civil unions. While I believe erroneously, many people believe America to be a country founded directly on Christian values. An overwhelming majority of the Christian communities are not in favor of anything other than Heterosexual and indivisible unions. DOMA stated that the Federal Government did not have to recognize same-sex spouses as such and also allowed states which did not recognize "alternative" unions within their borders to also not recognize unions established within the borders of a different, pro-alternative union, state. Clinton signed this bill after it cruised through Congress in '96. If there's anything he's not shaky on its heterosexuality.
The part of DOMA that was declared unconstitutional is the 3rd part which reads,
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The argument that is was unconstitutional stemmed from the "due process" clause of the 5th amendment. In essence, the highlighted text restricted the application of American laws which provide benefits to married people. This law, as was argued, places same-sex "spouses" in a category below opp-sex spouses in reference to the Federal Government which is not constitutional. This is a sound argument.
However, the discussion should not be about how the Federal Government views these civil unions. I could care less if a guy is taking out social security as a "married man" because he "married" his car, as long as it means he also has to demonstrate in good faith the union was mutual (which is of course impossible). The benefits the Government provides to the spouse of a married person should be provided to the "other half" of an alternative union. However, that doesn't mean its a marriage.
As I've eloquently, or not so much, demonstrated in earlier posts, way way back, words and their meanings are completely subjective. This is also the case with the word marriage.Webster-Merriam holds the following definition:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
I wonder when (2) was added. The first country to ever legalize same-sex marriage with The Netherlands in 2000, so the Earth had been around for approx. 6000 years before we got that "right".
So what is a marriage? It is a socio-economic union meant to provide the following things:
1. Procreation
2. Continuation of Lineage
3. Differentiation of the Sexes
4. Instruction and Care of the Young
5. Satisfaction of Needs for Companionship and Status derived from the concise Webster-Merriam
Does same-sex marriage satisfy these criteria?
#5 works, there's nothing saying two men or two women can't experience companionship. In the current society their status is less favorable than that of a traditional union but with time that will even out.
#4 works as well, though many traditionalists shudder at the thought, two men and/or two women can raise a child.
#3 not even close. With the progress of Liberalism and Feminism the differentiation of the sexes has become virtually taboo (not surprising the definition of marriage followed suit) and same-sex unions are part-and-parcel with the spectrum-style approach to sexuality.
#2 nope. This goes hand-in-hand with 1.
#1 is the primary reason I will always say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" when referring to alternative unions. It cannot physically, scientifically etc, participate in marriage's first cause, procreation. Artificial insemination, surrogate carriers and adoption are NOT natural procreation through marriage. With the development of genetic science and "sex-change" therapies one day we may have a man with all, and I mean a l l, of the biological distinctions of a woman. At that point, I don't understand the problem...obviously the individual performing a wholesale switch may have some issues (understated) but as far as the marriage is concerned its a man and a man who has completely changed into a woman, making it relatively traditional.
Still haven't said why I care about DOMA though. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is usually pretty much the bomb, had a vicious dissenting opinion regarding the DOMA case. If you don't know how SCOTUS works go retake High School Government. In his dissent, he states that upholding DOMA was not about attacking the alternative marriage styles but instead about confirming what the various laws and statutes that are already on the books mean when they use the term "marriage." He suggests that SCOTUS has now made anyone in support of DOMA, or any traditional definition of the term marriage, an "enemy of the state." And he is 100% correct. This is a direct violation of those individuals' constitutional rights. The simpler, more constitutional way of solving this is for each state, municipality and board to alter the reading of their laws to include "same-sex." In doing so, you protect the meaning of marriage while allowing for everyone to enjoy the political freedom to be wrong. This is a very important freedom, something that is often overlooked in the march of Liberalism.
So that's why I care. I have a right to be wrong. Whether or not I think I'm wrong, and I don't, it would be the very definition of insanity to believe something I thought was wrong, I have a protected, God-given right, to disagree. SCOTUS took away a tiny piece of that right in the DOMA decision. I fear it won't be the last.
All-Star game was fun as usual. Not as pleased with the result but Cliff Lee gave me a few more reasons to hate him. Now if he ends up a Cardinal like SI says he might, he will slide down to "least likable athlete ever" range, with the Reggie Millers and A-Rods of the world. Kimbrel had a rough outing too, good thing his two worst outings of the year have been in exhibition play and otherwise he's as dominant as ever.
Also, as a Braves fan I hate everything Yankee. Everything except Mariano Rivera. I hated when he came into the game, cuz it meant it was over, but the man, the player, the professional, the pitcher was everything any fan could hope to experience. He is the greatest reliever ever and possibly the greater Yankee pitcher ever. So I say #HailSandman
The part of DOMA that was declared unconstitutional is the 3rd part which reads,
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The argument that is was unconstitutional stemmed from the "due process" clause of the 5th amendment. In essence, the highlighted text restricted the application of American laws which provide benefits to married people. This law, as was argued, places same-sex "spouses" in a category below opp-sex spouses in reference to the Federal Government which is not constitutional. This is a sound argument.
However, the discussion should not be about how the Federal Government views these civil unions. I could care less if a guy is taking out social security as a "married man" because he "married" his car, as long as it means he also has to demonstrate in good faith the union was mutual (which is of course impossible). The benefits the Government provides to the spouse of a married person should be provided to the "other half" of an alternative union. However, that doesn't mean its a marriage.
As I've eloquently, or not so much, demonstrated in earlier posts, way way back, words and their meanings are completely subjective. This is also the case with the word marriage.Webster-Merriam holds the following definition:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
I wonder when (2) was added. The first country to ever legalize same-sex marriage with The Netherlands in 2000, so the Earth had been around for approx. 6000 years before we got that "right".
So what is a marriage? It is a socio-economic union meant to provide the following things:
1. Procreation
2. Continuation of Lineage
3. Differentiation of the Sexes
4. Instruction and Care of the Young
5. Satisfaction of Needs for Companionship and Status derived from the concise Webster-Merriam
Does same-sex marriage satisfy these criteria?
#5 works, there's nothing saying two men or two women can't experience companionship. In the current society their status is less favorable than that of a traditional union but with time that will even out.
#4 works as well, though many traditionalists shudder at the thought, two men and/or two women can raise a child.
#3 not even close. With the progress of Liberalism and Feminism the differentiation of the sexes has become virtually taboo (not surprising the definition of marriage followed suit) and same-sex unions are part-and-parcel with the spectrum-style approach to sexuality.
#2 nope. This goes hand-in-hand with 1.
#1 is the primary reason I will always say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" when referring to alternative unions. It cannot physically, scientifically etc, participate in marriage's first cause, procreation. Artificial insemination, surrogate carriers and adoption are NOT natural procreation through marriage. With the development of genetic science and "sex-change" therapies one day we may have a man with all, and I mean a l l, of the biological distinctions of a woman. At that point, I don't understand the problem...obviously the individual performing a wholesale switch may have some issues (understated) but as far as the marriage is concerned its a man and a man who has completely changed into a woman, making it relatively traditional.
Still haven't said why I care about DOMA though. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is usually pretty much the bomb, had a vicious dissenting opinion regarding the DOMA case. If you don't know how SCOTUS works go retake High School Government. In his dissent, he states that upholding DOMA was not about attacking the alternative marriage styles but instead about confirming what the various laws and statutes that are already on the books mean when they use the term "marriage." He suggests that SCOTUS has now made anyone in support of DOMA, or any traditional definition of the term marriage, an "enemy of the state." And he is 100% correct. This is a direct violation of those individuals' constitutional rights. The simpler, more constitutional way of solving this is for each state, municipality and board to alter the reading of their laws to include "same-sex." In doing so, you protect the meaning of marriage while allowing for everyone to enjoy the political freedom to be wrong. This is a very important freedom, something that is often overlooked in the march of Liberalism.
So that's why I care. I have a right to be wrong. Whether or not I think I'm wrong, and I don't, it would be the very definition of insanity to believe something I thought was wrong, I have a protected, God-given right, to disagree. SCOTUS took away a tiny piece of that right in the DOMA decision. I fear it won't be the last.
All-Star game was fun as usual. Not as pleased with the result but Cliff Lee gave me a few more reasons to hate him. Now if he ends up a Cardinal like SI says he might, he will slide down to "least likable athlete ever" range, with the Reggie Millers and A-Rods of the world. Kimbrel had a rough outing too, good thing his two worst outings of the year have been in exhibition play and otherwise he's as dominant as ever.
Also, as a Braves fan I hate everything Yankee. Everything except Mariano Rivera. I hated when he came into the game, cuz it meant it was over, but the man, the player, the professional, the pitcher was everything any fan could hope to experience. He is the greatest reliever ever and possibly the greater Yankee pitcher ever. So I say #HailSandman
Thursday, May 2, 2013
With Liberty and Justice for All...
- The following are the criteria for a Just War. Developed from the thinking of St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas.
- Just cause - The reason for the war must be defense either of oneself or a helpless victim.
- Comparative justice - The war must be in response to action. (threat of action is debatable)
- Competent authority - The individual declaring the war must have sufficient authority to do so (derived from the people's will)
- Right intention - The war must not include a conflict of interest or selfish gain.
- Probability of success - The party attempting to be just must have a chance to win.
- Last resort - The war must be the final act in a series of processes for peace.
- Proportionality - The war must be fought fairly, such as guns vs guns etc. (This is also greatly debatable.)
- I believe a war is just or correct if it adheres in principle to the above list. The union's actions in the Civil War were not just. How so? They meet Just Cause, because they set out to free slaves. They meet Comparative Justice because the CSA mobilized. They meet Competent Authority the Constitution gives the President and Congress the right to declare war. The meet Right Intention, see Just Cause. The meet Probability of Success. They fail to meet Last Resort. Lincoln had many options on the table, he rejected them and he launched the war. The CSA however, presented each of those options and did not intend on combat, but merely a peaceful withdrawing from the union.
- WWI - Just Cause? Possibly, at least for America, we saw the preservation of the Modern European states as a just cause. Comparative Justice? Both sides were being ruthless so response to those actions would qualify. Right Intention? Neither side meets this criteria, except for perhaps America, as we had no chance to gain from the war. Probability of Success? All sides had argument here. Last Resort? Possibly, much peach was bantered about before the war broke. Proportionality? For the most part. Total War allows for civilian casualties. I believe that Total War is just only if the war is truly against the people and not just the government controlling those people, such as with Japan in WWII. The Japanese government may have been totalitarian, but each and every Japanese soldier was willing to die to protect those islands. In Germany however, the public opinion of the war steadily fell and fire bombing Berlin was not a moral action (and in many ways militarily superfluous.)
- Iraq? Just Cause - stated cause was expansion of freedom (no) and toppling of Hussein (yes) and acquisition of WMDs (yes, though their existence is to this day merely a myth). Comparative Justice - had Iraqi government agents carried out the 9/11 attacks then yes, however there is not evidence they did, so no. Competent Authority - yes, go check the Congressional vote. Right Intention - again, yes unless all the conspiracies about oil acquisition and arms production is true, which I doubt. Probability of Success - almost certainly. Last Resort - debatable, but in relation to the 3 goals I listed under Just Cause, yes. Proportionality - they had tanks, air power and a modern army. As for the overwhelming numerical advantage the Allies possess, Proportionality is describing attacking someone you could instead just bully into submission. Example, Italian tanks flying through Ethiopia killing men on horses. The Italians could have occupied Ethiopia with ease without the mass slaughter. That of course, is only one of the many reasons the Axis offenses in WWII were unjust.
- So. Self-defense and the defense of another with sufficient evidence grants just war. Lots of relative terms in there, so to clarify: The leadership of a nation, with the support of its people, may wage war in order to protect itself and the interests of its allies, as long as it pursues peace up to and during the conflict.
- I believe a Pro-Life individual can be in favor of Just War. I am.
- Braves took 2 of 3 from the Nats, still looking like the cream of the NL, especially with McCann hurt, Jason on the DL, Beachy still rehabbing and BJ hitting >.200. AND Hudson's 200th win, the one where he beat Gio Gonzalez, went 2-3 with a 2B and a HR and raised his BA% for the year to .386 led me to check his career numbers and evaluate his HOF chances. I think he's in, he's 7th on the all-time winning % list at 200-105 and has good counting numbers even with a season lost to Tommy John's. He's said he wants to play 2 more with Atlanta at least so add a couple more years before he hangs it up and he has a shot at 250.
- Next week, I'll go a different direction again. Let's talk about the music I like, why and why you should too.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
State's Rights, Slavery and a Vampire Slayer
I haven't seen the movie, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer" but I plan to. In the mean time, I'll keep to my version of what has been called "fantastical" history. I believe the Civil War could have been averted, Slavery could have been abolished, and America could probably control most of Mexico if it had not been for one Abraham Lincoln.
Let me interject into what will sound like a sweeping condemnation of a man beloved by millions. He was a brilliant individual with a canny sense of who to trust and how to manipulate people's desires to achieve his goals. He had a strong moral fiber rivaled only by his propensity for mischief. Or, so say the historians. Please do not assume I believe I could do better, this is silly-talk. I do not criticize the NFL QB because I am a world-class athlete but because certain expectations are natural when millions of dollars of both payroll and economic impact are invested in his execution. Such is the same, lesser to greater, with our Presidents. They are in the most important position our country has, they are expected to be excellent, anything less is deserving of critique and in some cases ridicule. This is not disrespecting the office, in fact its directly the opposite.
Back to the vitriol. The country, crica 1850, was divided. Certain economic and social features lead to this widening gap and the solutions were growing scarce. Henry Clay sacrificed any Presidential dreams he might have had to maintain the uneasy balance the legislature had established. The south, controlled by "Democrats," was devoted to slave-ownership, state's rights, Jeffersonianism and their elitist traditions. Two of those are good things, I'll let you guess. The north was divided itself between various warring factions and in 1854 the Republicans were born. They were created to defeat Slavery and in an extremely bloody and costly fashion, they did. Their rapid growth to power (Lincoln in 1860) is quite remarkable. However, this brand new political party, built on the moral high-ground of abolitionism, shows its true colors as soon as it hits the national stage. In the famous 1860 race, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge (later, moderately successful Confederate General) faced off against Lincoln, but the central states went to 3rd and 4th party candidates. In particular, Bell for the Constitutional Union Party, stole 39 electoral college votes and left Lincoln with a large majority. The southern Democrats, who also lost Missouri to the party traitor Stephen Douglas, prepared for nullification and/or secession. Lincoln prepared to ignore them and abolish slavery. War happened.
How then can you not blame Abraham Lincoln? Sure, the secessionists all voted to leave democratically, so they are to blame. But they didn't start a war, they just asked to leave. Sure, the slave owners who refused to compromise are to blame, but they wanted Lincoln to work with them, something he felt morally obligated not to do. Some historians suggest the actual events leading up to Ft Sumter are somewhat trivial. War was coming, it had been coming for 50 years. I disagree. Yes, the cultures of the North and South had drifted apart. Yes, Kansas was a bloody mess when it applied for Statehood. Yes, wackos like John Brown were stirring up trouble. But war? Today, a solid percentage, I'd guess probably 42%, of the American people are against abortion. We knew, before the election, that Barack Obama was going to repeal Bush's Abortion Bill. Abortion is as horrible a moral affront as any government-endorsed action any country has ever had. I for one, was not interested in starting a war over it. Lincoln would be. Pshaw! You say in disgust! He hated the war! Sure, but he didn't hate it enough to prevent it. He wanted to push his agenda, however noble, regardless of the consequences.
I believe this is kinda boring so I'll wrap up. I was recently introduced to a blog by a Pastor/blogger named Doug Wilson. I highly recommend it, he's a genius. He proposed in his book that in order to change a society, in order to fix a society's ills, you must gradually educate and "save" the populace. (Obviously, you aren't saving anybody, "save" means witness to, get into church, assimilate into the saints). He rejects the notion that a war for a just cause is a just war. His primary example? The Civil War.
Next time, Just War Theory. What it is, why I like it and why it doesn't null this post.
Braves back on track! We don' beat "Strasburger" twice now! :)
Let me interject into what will sound like a sweeping condemnation of a man beloved by millions. He was a brilliant individual with a canny sense of who to trust and how to manipulate people's desires to achieve his goals. He had a strong moral fiber rivaled only by his propensity for mischief. Or, so say the historians. Please do not assume I believe I could do better, this is silly-talk. I do not criticize the NFL QB because I am a world-class athlete but because certain expectations are natural when millions of dollars of both payroll and economic impact are invested in his execution. Such is the same, lesser to greater, with our Presidents. They are in the most important position our country has, they are expected to be excellent, anything less is deserving of critique and in some cases ridicule. This is not disrespecting the office, in fact its directly the opposite.
Back to the vitriol. The country, crica 1850, was divided. Certain economic and social features lead to this widening gap and the solutions were growing scarce. Henry Clay sacrificed any Presidential dreams he might have had to maintain the uneasy balance the legislature had established. The south, controlled by "Democrats," was devoted to slave-ownership, state's rights, Jeffersonianism and their elitist traditions. Two of those are good things, I'll let you guess. The north was divided itself between various warring factions and in 1854 the Republicans were born. They were created to defeat Slavery and in an extremely bloody and costly fashion, they did. Their rapid growth to power (Lincoln in 1860) is quite remarkable. However, this brand new political party, built on the moral high-ground of abolitionism, shows its true colors as soon as it hits the national stage. In the famous 1860 race, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge (later, moderately successful Confederate General) faced off against Lincoln, but the central states went to 3rd and 4th party candidates. In particular, Bell for the Constitutional Union Party, stole 39 electoral college votes and left Lincoln with a large majority. The southern Democrats, who also lost Missouri to the party traitor Stephen Douglas, prepared for nullification and/or secession. Lincoln prepared to ignore them and abolish slavery. War happened.
How then can you not blame Abraham Lincoln? Sure, the secessionists all voted to leave democratically, so they are to blame. But they didn't start a war, they just asked to leave. Sure, the slave owners who refused to compromise are to blame, but they wanted Lincoln to work with them, something he felt morally obligated not to do. Some historians suggest the actual events leading up to Ft Sumter are somewhat trivial. War was coming, it had been coming for 50 years. I disagree. Yes, the cultures of the North and South had drifted apart. Yes, Kansas was a bloody mess when it applied for Statehood. Yes, wackos like John Brown were stirring up trouble. But war? Today, a solid percentage, I'd guess probably 42%, of the American people are against abortion. We knew, before the election, that Barack Obama was going to repeal Bush's Abortion Bill. Abortion is as horrible a moral affront as any government-endorsed action any country has ever had. I for one, was not interested in starting a war over it. Lincoln would be. Pshaw! You say in disgust! He hated the war! Sure, but he didn't hate it enough to prevent it. He wanted to push his agenda, however noble, regardless of the consequences.
I believe this is kinda boring so I'll wrap up. I was recently introduced to a blog by a Pastor/blogger named Doug Wilson. I highly recommend it, he's a genius. He proposed in his book that in order to change a society, in order to fix a society's ills, you must gradually educate and "save" the populace. (Obviously, you aren't saving anybody, "save" means witness to, get into church, assimilate into the saints). He rejects the notion that a war for a just cause is a just war. His primary example? The Civil War.
Next time, Just War Theory. What it is, why I like it and why it doesn't null this post.
Braves back on track! We don' beat "Strasburger" twice now! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)