tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post3806467776380701224..comments2024-03-26T13:46:42.738-05:00Comments on 4 Quarters, 10 Dimes: A History LessonDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463621516644789183noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-67596428682901353852017-12-07T16:13:05.834-06:002017-12-07T16:13:05.834-06:00Hi Ewan -
I was wondering who was doing that. :...Hi Ewan - <br /><br />I was wondering who was doing that. :) I can see hits on posts, but not sources of hits on posts. Enjoy!<br /><br />I still don't think it's a strong enough force to induce mass treason, which is why so many of the current events seek to cloak it in other things. The fundamental basis of politics changes after the late 1960s, from Money (who has it, who doesn't, what happens when you run out, etc.) to "values." This has two big consequences. First, it hides economic issues. When taxes are considered a moral issue, the money drops out of sight and you can't have anything approaching a responsible fiscal policy. All people talk about is values, and then you can drown it in Culture War. And that's what has happened. Second, it makes it impossible to govern. The difference between a 2% tax and a 4% tax is pretty easy to work out, but where is the "3%" option in the abortion debate? Nobody wants to compromise their values, and more importantly nobody wants to be SEEN compromising their values. So politics gets more shrill and less useful.<br /><br />While individuals will commit treason for money, international finance is not enough to get the mass of people to do so. If you want to subvert the republic, you have to cloak your financial interests in "values," and that is precisely what is happening now.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03463621516644789183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-77586540388166491802017-12-07T09:39:33.317-06:002017-12-07T09:39:33.317-06:00Yes, I'm reading your blog from the start, hen...Yes, I'm reading your blog from the start, hence these comments :). I wonder whether you still think, in light of current events, that "International finance is not generally a strong enough force to induce mass treason"..?Ewanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15587749873205076612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-54313707984583909102010-04-21T08:10:08.575-05:002010-04-21T08:10:08.575-05:00Jack - well there were numerous causes that played...Jack - well there were numerous causes that played into secession, but the only one that was critical was slavery. And even that was more complicated than just abolitionists vs. anti-abolitionists - northerners were willing to tolerate slavery in the South but not the West; Southerners insisted western slavery was critical to southern slavery's survival. And so on.<br /><br />But the bottom line is that if you take away the slavery, the Civil War doesn't happen. International finance is not generally a strong enough force to induce mass treason.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03463621516644789183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-3345891139587903632010-04-20T19:42:10.489-05:002010-04-20T19:42:10.489-05:00test message from Triatest message from TriaTriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16909516792990777085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-90366128448922389792010-04-19T20:58:06.044-05:002010-04-19T20:58:06.044-05:00You and your War of Northern Aggression. You shoul...You and your War of Northern Aggression. You should be ashamed of yourself.<br /><br />A lovely episode of The Simpsons has Apu taking a citizenship test. The proctor says, "All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?" "Actually," says Apu, "there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--" "Wait, wait," interrupts the proctor. "Just say slavery." "Slavery it is, sir!"Jack Lynchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13440417116228365588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-18653013457629080032010-04-19T08:33:10.501-05:002010-04-19T08:33:10.501-05:00All good history is revisionist, because the goal ...All good history is revisionist, because the goal is always to find a better interpretation that explains more of the evidence than the one you already have. Even if you're just filling in the gaps.<br /><br />This isn't really revisionist so much as reversionist, though - I'm tired of neo-Confederates substituting their own fantasies (fantasies that deny rather than explain evidence) in place of the obvious truths of the matter. <br /><br />The Confederacy was about slavery, and no amount of yammering on about "pride" or "heritage" or "states' rights" can change that fact, nor should it be allowed to obscure that fact. The people on the ground in 1861 knew very well why they were doing what they were doing, and we need to take them seriously.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03463621516644789183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5977625681756554695.post-20065388304737347112010-04-18T23:38:13.479-05:002010-04-18T23:38:13.479-05:00How un-PC of you! Revisionist history - an Americ...How un-PC of you! Revisionist history - an American tradition! Great post!Katherine McKayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11464258086712270178noreply@blogger.com