Monday, May 17, 2010
The Return of the King
I have been busy of late with finals and other writing projects but will start writing on here again, I have returned to take my rightful place as King of this flowerpot.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Evil and Wrong
Another sad story of abuse of women in Islam has come to us out of Yemen. A 12 year old girl died from internal bleeding caused by intercourse three days after being married to an older man. I quote from the article, "Child brides are common in Yemen, where the United Nations estimates that one in three girls are married before age 18. Most are married off to older men with more than one wife, according to a study by Sanaa University." Certainly, Arab Islamic culture is not unique in having sex crazed men seeking ever more, and younger, women; if anything that's a global trend. What is unique is the degree to which it is entrenched, institutionalized, encouraged and even justified by the Koran.
It is known that Mohammad had four wives and widely accepted that he married he favorite wife, Aisha, at the age of six but held off consummating until she was nine. In Sura 2:223 (the Cow) Mohammad tells husbands that their wife is their "tilth" or field, to be entered and "plowed" as they please. Sura 65:4 (Divorce) outlines the procedures for divorcing your wife, with special instructions in case she has not yet reached puberty. There seems to be a doctrine that a Muslim man can do anything Mohammad did, hence why most Muslim countries allow up to four wives and taking young girls to wife is allowed and even encouraged, but you are not to consummate until "later" (wink) when they are grown up, like twelve. In addition, several verses refer to women as property. The degree to which the Koran dehumanizes women is truly appalling. Verses like 4:11 and 2:282 plainly say that a woman is worth half a man. 4:11 is where inheritance rules are laid down and women can only inherit half as much as a man. In 2:282 rules for witnesses are explained and also explained is that it takes two women to equal the mental faculties of a man.
Not wanting all of its misogynist credentials to come from sexual exploitation, Islam also threw in spousal abuse. Highlights from those six clips include in the second to last one at about 1:30 the cleric praying for spousal abuse, other juicy tidbits include viewing it as "therapeutic", not more than ten times, no causing bleeding, only a small stick, not in the face, not in front of children etc. Now the obvious counter-argument is that I found the six worst clerics and posted them, ignoring all of the moderates. To speak to that, I would like someone to come up with "moderate" clerics speaking differently on the issue. I actually kind think those were the moderates, given that they were advocating limits on wife beating not backed up by the Koran. Sura 4:34 (Women), a major verse on wife beating, has six main translations, five of the six say beat or scourge and the sixth dubiously inserts words to change the meaning to "beat them (lightly)"
While you can find strange inconsistencies in the lives of early leaders of other faiths, (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's multiple wives come to mind) where this becomes salient is when trying to examine the status of women in Islam today. I can't conclusively prove the Koran is the cause of Muslim women's sad state today I think it's a good window. It could be a chicken and egg case, cultural attitudes bleeding over into the texts. What is clear is that the attitudes and practices in the Koran are a big part of the culture.
Now where this starts to get really interesting is when we take into account Islam's condemnation of the West as being decadent and morally corrupt. I agree, we are, For crying out loud, we defend the proliferation of Pornography in the West. Not only is pornography incredibly morally repugnant but its' highly caustic and destructive effect on society is almost impossible to overstate. I won't go into the whole terrorism vs. taking a moral stand in seeking change, we all have our preferred methods of changing the world for the better. In the West we have our fair share of sexual predators, the difference is we don't use scripture to legally protect it.
It is known that Mohammad had four wives and widely accepted that he married he favorite wife, Aisha, at the age of six but held off consummating until she was nine. In Sura 2:223 (the Cow) Mohammad tells husbands that their wife is their "tilth" or field, to be entered and "plowed" as they please. Sura 65:4 (Divorce) outlines the procedures for divorcing your wife, with special instructions in case she has not yet reached puberty. There seems to be a doctrine that a Muslim man can do anything Mohammad did, hence why most Muslim countries allow up to four wives and taking young girls to wife is allowed and even encouraged, but you are not to consummate until "later" (wink) when they are grown up, like twelve. In addition, several verses refer to women as property. The degree to which the Koran dehumanizes women is truly appalling. Verses like 4:11 and 2:282 plainly say that a woman is worth half a man. 4:11 is where inheritance rules are laid down and women can only inherit half as much as a man. In 2:282 rules for witnesses are explained and also explained is that it takes two women to equal the mental faculties of a man.
Not wanting all of its misogynist credentials to come from sexual exploitation, Islam also threw in spousal abuse. Highlights from those six clips include in the second to last one at about 1:30 the cleric praying for spousal abuse, other juicy tidbits include viewing it as "therapeutic", not more than ten times, no causing bleeding, only a small stick, not in the face, not in front of children etc. Now the obvious counter-argument is that I found the six worst clerics and posted them, ignoring all of the moderates. To speak to that, I would like someone to come up with "moderate" clerics speaking differently on the issue. I actually kind think those were the moderates, given that they were advocating limits on wife beating not backed up by the Koran. Sura 4:34 (Women), a major verse on wife beating, has six main translations, five of the six say beat or scourge and the sixth dubiously inserts words to change the meaning to "beat them (lightly)"
While you can find strange inconsistencies in the lives of early leaders of other faiths, (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's multiple wives come to mind) where this becomes salient is when trying to examine the status of women in Islam today. I can't conclusively prove the Koran is the cause of Muslim women's sad state today I think it's a good window. It could be a chicken and egg case, cultural attitudes bleeding over into the texts. What is clear is that the attitudes and practices in the Koran are a big part of the culture.
Now where this starts to get really interesting is when we take into account Islam's condemnation of the West as being decadent and morally corrupt. I agree, we are, For crying out loud, we defend the proliferation of Pornography in the West. Not only is pornography incredibly morally repugnant but its' highly caustic and destructive effect on society is almost impossible to overstate. I won't go into the whole terrorism vs. taking a moral stand in seeking change, we all have our preferred methods of changing the world for the better. In the West we have our fair share of sexual predators, the difference is we don't use scripture to legally protect it.
Monday, April 5, 2010
To Bruce, at PETA
On Friday the VP of PETA came to BYU to debate about whether Vegetarianism should be a tenant of the LDS faith. I was questioned afterward as to how I would have responded. I am not going to take the time to outline PETA's case, I should be able to get to video of it soon and then I'll edit that in.
1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.
2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.
3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.
4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.
5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.
6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.
In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?
1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.
2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.
3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.
4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.
5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.
6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.
In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A Clear and Present Danger from the South: Part 2
In part 1 yesterday I related the history of the Mexican Expedition of 1916 and as promised, I will make it relevant. While we don't have a carbon copy of 1916 today we a have similar situation. The Government of Mexico and the drug cartels are engaged in a de facto civil war. We have this Treaty of Westphalia notion of the sovereignty of nations and internal matters. As long as what happens in Mexico stays in Mexico we have no business interfering. This breaks down when what happens in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico and their problems become our problems. If Mexican internal strife compromises our national security we have a right to step in and at least end the threat to us.
As things unravel in Mexico we see hard gang violence spill north into the US. In southern California gangs have started to fight an insurgent campaign against police anti-gang units, even using IEDs. Mexico's problem is our problem now.
I just want to take a minute from the article to congratulate the Mexico Government for permanently end gun violence in their country by total disarmament of the populace.............. oh............. scratch that......... They say statistics don't lie but statisticians do and that's whats going on when certain politicians tell us 90% of the guns used by the cartels come from the US. Its actually more like 17%. If anything the guns flow the other way with the drugs onto our streets. Mexico doesn't have a leg to stand on whining about a few of our guns ending up there when they export huge amounts of illegal machine guns and urban terrorism to us if they won't lets us help them end the cartels.
I don't think the Mexican Government really wants our help. Currently they allow only a small number of unarmed law enforcement advisers in Mexico. We could do so much more. We could provide all kinds of logistical support, money, paramilitary training, advanced weapons and our vast electronic intelligence capability etc. We have had a lot of success sending military advisers to other cartel ridden countries. In the late 80's Pablo Escobar's narcoterrorism destroyed the ability of Colombian Government to do much of anything about him. The US sent Delta Force to create and train a special task force to shut down the Medellin Cartel. The task force hunted down and killed Escobar and dismantled his cartel, all without US personnel using their weapons.
What I am starting to get at is that if the Mexicans have lost control (they pretty much have) and are unable to bring the situation under control soon (they can't) then they need to let us help put down the cartels and end the threat to us. It won't be easy for the Government to admit to needing help from big brother but if the situation continues to get worse we will have to get involved at some point, whether the Mexican Government agrees or not. Of course, that assumes there will be a Government left at that point. At the beginning of 2009 the US State Department listed Mexico as one of the two countries most likely to undergo a revolution that year. Since then its gotten worse.
If we get to the point we have to intervene it won't matter if Mexico "allows" us to or not. History shows that America can have its way with Mexico, although sometimes we get preoccupied by other things like World War I or Iraq and Afghanistan. To recap history, in 1836 Texas became the only (future) state to have kicked a country's (Mexico) butt on their own. In 1848 Mexico made the double mistake of not only invading the US but also at the same time invading Texas (after the 1836 war and later skirmishes one would think they had learned not to mess with Texas, but apparently not.) The US went down and cleaned their clock and showed restraint, only taking Texas permanently, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah as well as parts of Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. In 1914 during the Mexican Revolution Mexican forces attacked 9 US Sailors in Veracruz guarding US citizens and property. As a result, the US took the city in street to street fighting and held it for six months. In 1916 the Mexican Government was unable to stop Pancho Villa from conducting cross boarder rails and burning American towns so we sent the Army down there. We spent more time fighting the Mexican Government than chasing Pancho Villa; because apparently they didn't understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nevertheless, we stayed until we entered World War I and sent the Army to France.
Am I advocating an Afghanistan-style invasion? NO. But we need to take an active role in unscrewing Mexico now so we don't have to take drastic action later. It would benefit America by curbing crime, it would benefit the Mexicans in many ways. In fact, the only people who would not benefit are the cartels. The cartels think this is a horrible idea.
As things unravel in Mexico we see hard gang violence spill north into the US. In southern California gangs have started to fight an insurgent campaign against police anti-gang units, even using IEDs. Mexico's problem is our problem now.
I just want to take a minute from the article to congratulate the Mexico Government for permanently end gun violence in their country by total disarmament of the populace.............. oh............. scratch that......... They say statistics don't lie but statisticians do and that's whats going on when certain politicians tell us 90% of the guns used by the cartels come from the US. Its actually more like 17%. If anything the guns flow the other way with the drugs onto our streets. Mexico doesn't have a leg to stand on whining about a few of our guns ending up there when they export huge amounts of illegal machine guns and urban terrorism to us if they won't lets us help them end the cartels.
I don't think the Mexican Government really wants our help. Currently they allow only a small number of unarmed law enforcement advisers in Mexico. We could do so much more. We could provide all kinds of logistical support, money, paramilitary training, advanced weapons and our vast electronic intelligence capability etc. We have had a lot of success sending military advisers to other cartel ridden countries. In the late 80's Pablo Escobar's narcoterrorism destroyed the ability of Colombian Government to do much of anything about him. The US sent Delta Force to create and train a special task force to shut down the Medellin Cartel. The task force hunted down and killed Escobar and dismantled his cartel, all without US personnel using their weapons.
What I am starting to get at is that if the Mexicans have lost control (they pretty much have) and are unable to bring the situation under control soon (they can't) then they need to let us help put down the cartels and end the threat to us. It won't be easy for the Government to admit to needing help from big brother but if the situation continues to get worse we will have to get involved at some point, whether the Mexican Government agrees or not. Of course, that assumes there will be a Government left at that point. At the beginning of 2009 the US State Department listed Mexico as one of the two countries most likely to undergo a revolution that year. Since then its gotten worse.
If we get to the point we have to intervene it won't matter if Mexico "allows" us to or not. History shows that America can have its way with Mexico, although sometimes we get preoccupied by other things like World War I or Iraq and Afghanistan. To recap history, in 1836 Texas became the only (future) state to have kicked a country's (Mexico) butt on their own. In 1848 Mexico made the double mistake of not only invading the US but also at the same time invading Texas (after the 1836 war and later skirmishes one would think they had learned not to mess with Texas, but apparently not.) The US went down and cleaned their clock and showed restraint, only taking Texas permanently, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah as well as parts of Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. In 1914 during the Mexican Revolution Mexican forces attacked 9 US Sailors in Veracruz guarding US citizens and property. As a result, the US took the city in street to street fighting and held it for six months. In 1916 the Mexican Government was unable to stop Pancho Villa from conducting cross boarder rails and burning American towns so we sent the Army down there. We spent more time fighting the Mexican Government than chasing Pancho Villa; because apparently they didn't understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nevertheless, we stayed until we entered World War I and sent the Army to France.
Am I advocating an Afghanistan-style invasion? NO. But we need to take an active role in unscrewing Mexico now so we don't have to take drastic action later. It would benefit America by curbing crime, it would benefit the Mexicans in many ways. In fact, the only people who would not benefit are the cartels. The cartels think this is a horrible idea.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Philosophical Review: Plato's Apology of Socrates
I was rummaging through my philosophical book collection and thought it might be a fun to write a review on philosophical texts from time to time. If anyone wants my opinion on a particular document just let me know and I'll read it and share my impressions. Just like with History there is an academic way to write about philosophy but unlike with History where I choose to ignore it I don't actually know it because I only took the most basic Philosophy class and we didn't write papers. Philosophy majors will have to put up with my layman's style or go write their own paper. This turned out a ton longer than I thought but I promise its worth it.
I want to do Plato's Apology. To get a few things out of the way first in this sense Apology comes from the Greek word apologia, its Greek title, when means defense speech in a legal proceeding. As Plato often did in his writings it's Socrates speaking words Plato wrote later. Sometime he uses this to present his own ideas as if they were Socrates's. We don't really know what happened at the trial. Another student of Socrates, Xenophon, wrote his own Apology that was very different. To be fair to Plato, Xenophon wasn't actually in Athens at the time. He signed up as a mercenary for a coup attempt against the Persian Emperor that went horribly, horribly wrong and was desperately fleeing across Southwest Asia with the most powerful army in the world chasing him at the time of the trial. For simplicity I am just going to go with it and write as if Plato was the court stenographer. For direct quotes I'll give you the Sephonopolis citations which are standard in all editions.
Background:
A few years earlier Athens lost the 27 year Peloponnese War that absolutely wrecked Greece and primed it for the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great to crush it. The War was fought by a coalition of democratic cities led by Athens and a coalition of oligarchic cities under Sparta. When Athens was starved out by a siege the Spartan Army occupied the city and installed an Oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants. Also, I am originating unconfirmed rumors that when the Spartans marched into to the city center of Athens in unison they shouted "THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!" Pass it along.
As a landed citizen Socrates fought as a Hoplite heavy infantryman in several important battles and from all accounts fought bravely. Other important background notes include the trial of the Ten Generals. After a naval victory a storm approached and the commanders failed to launch a rescue attempt as a result. The men were tried as a group instead of individually because the masses were whipped up in a fury even though this was against the Law. Also, the Thirty Tyrants tried to implicate as many other citizens as possible in their crimes to defuse guilt to as many as possible.
Socrates was charged with impiety, not believing in the gods the city believed in, and corrupting the young, a charge sadly missing from our legal system. I decided not to give a blow by blow summery because that was boring even me but rather I will pick out salient points of philosophy and examine them. Early on he tells the story of a childhood friend who went to the Oracle in Delphi to ask Apollo, the Greek God of Wisdom, if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. When his friend returned with the response that there was not, Socrates became troubled and sought out a politician, a craftsman and a poet. He found they knew lots of things he didn't but noted that they weren't as smart as they thought they were. They thought that because they had mastered one thing they had wisdom in all areas, which they didn't. Socrates concludes that the meaning of the Oracle's response was that while other men might know things he didn't, he at least knew he didn't and was therefore teachable. The first step to wisdom is a willingness to learn and an open mind.
As we go along Socrates starts to get into what he thinks the roll of a philosopher should be and how he goes about it and this is where things pick up. Socrates relates that if you had horses you would send them to a horse breeder who could tame and refine them into being the best and most useful horses possible. His question then is if we do that for horses why shouldn't we do that for people? As Socrates goes on he will make it clear that he sees his purpose in life to be like that horse breeder for the men of Athens and help them develop their souls.
Interspersed in here he is cross-examining his accusers and making them look foolish. At 28-b he responds to any who wonder if he regrets his life's work now that he is on trial for his life with is excellent retort. "You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look only to his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man." After mentioning Achillies' actions in revenging the death of his cousin, knowing full well it would cost him his life, because he knew it was what must be done.
We pick up again at 28-e. "This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: whenever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best, or has been placed by his commander, there he must remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace. It would have been a dreadful way to behave, men of Athens, if, at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, I had , at the risk of death, like everyone else, remained at my post where those you elected to command he ordered me, and then, when the god ordered me, as I thought, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others, I had abandoned my post for fear of death or anything else. That would have been a dreadful thing, and then I might truly have justly been brought here for not believing that there are gods, disobeying the Oracle, fearing death, and thinking I was wise when I was not. To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils."
I know I promised to summarize and not transcribe but some of these passages are so beautiful I can't help myself. The first thing to go over is where he relates it to battle. As a Hoplite he, like all land owning middle class, fought in a phalanx formation where heavily armored men with spears pack as tightly together as possible and move as one. As long as everyone stays in place its almost impossible to break. However, one man fleeing can cause the formation to collapse and the battle to be lost. Two of the battles he mentions fighting in were utter routs. Veterans of those battles who routed were sure to have been in the 1000 man jury. This marks the beginning of Socrates' questionable defense strategy of insulting the jury as much as possible.
Socrates then balks at a plea deal of an acquittal in exchange for giving up philosophy and explains his method of walking up to people with the following. Note I switch out the word Athenian with American and city with country because I think its more powerful that way. "Good Sir, you are an American, a citizen of the greatest country with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" He says if anyone disputes his accusation he won't go away until he has interrogated them to his satisfaction. You can begin to see why he is unpopular, someone who runs around full time calling people immoral is bound to piss some people off. If there is one thing he is good at it's pissing people off. Just in case he was not inflammatory enough he starts to explain that this behavior is why he is god's greatest gift to Athens. I am not making that up, he actually explains how being a kind of a jerk makes him the greatest divine gift of all.
To add insult to injury he brings up the trial of the Ten Generals. The way they did the trial was illegal and when Socrates, as a member of the council, voted against it he was nearly arrested and executed along with them. He also points out that since then everyone recognized they shouldn't have done what they did. Socrates brings up the period of the Thirty Tyrants and an instance when he and others were summoned to arrest someone for summary execution and at risk of his own life refused to do it because it was wrong. Apparently he thought telling a jury they were morally inferior to him was a surefire way to be found not guilty. Next he brings up that most of the time when someone is on trial they drag their family with them to weep and wail and beg for mercy to get out of it with a purely emotional strategy. Then he notes he didn't do that because he thinks its wrong, cowardly and corrupts the legal system.
When he is found guilty by a slim majority and the trial moves into the sentencing stage he tells them they are idiots for convicting him. Then he tells them that if the punishment is to fit the crime Athens should give him a mansion and a stipend so he can keep "blessing" them as the gods greatest gift to Athens. Also he tells them again he will never give it up as long as he lives.
When they give him the death penalty he tells them they will so live to regret it and those who voted for him to be killed will forever have his blood on their hands and live with great guilt. Later on he passes up several opportunities to escape and willingly drinks hemlock to see what death is like. This is what I call going out in style.
OK, now to step out of the text. As I noted at the beginning, this was written later and may or may not be accurate. I hope it is because I think the whole thing is great. Regardless of its historical accuracy there is a strong philosophical theme of standing by your principals no matter what. Socrates was concerned with ethics, i.e. becoming a good person. For him the welfare of the soul is far more important than worldly honors or possessions. However, unlike the ascetics that were common both then and now (most religions have some form of monasticism) he doesn't actually condemn material possessions. What he does condemn is the pursuit of them at the expense of the soul. Back to my favorite quote at 29-e, he asks the rhetorical question "Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" For him worldly things become immoral when our pursuit of them takes priority over everything else. I once heard the saying that "Money is good servant but a bad master." A scripture from the Book of Mormon comes to mind, Jacob 2: 18-19, "But before ye seek for riches seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good-to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted."
I can't remember which pre-socratic philosopher it was but one of them lived in a tub in the town square naked, often masturbating and whining that it was so unfair that hunger could not be similarly relieved but rubbing the belly and no I didn't make that up. We know that while Socrates cared little for worldly things he didn't go without them. We know he had a wife and children and also that he was a land owner because he served in the Athenian Army as a Hoplite which was only open to the land owning middle class. Plato by contrast came from a very wealthy family and served as cavalry, which was only open to those who could afford a war horse.
I think Socrates brought up the trial of the Ten Generals to make the point when you give up your principals and give in to external pressure who will live to regret it and to point out how he is able to live guilt free because he has moral fortitude. Socrates is held up and glorified as an ideal man, honest, true and faithful to virtue till the end. An interesting point to ponder is whether or not the story has a happy ending. The book A man for all Seasons covers the story of Thomas More, who was executed for not condoning the apostasy of Henry the VIII. Interestingly book ends with the quote "It is better to be a dead lion than a live mouse." and the film adaptation says "It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion." I am not sure why the movie flipped the moral of the story but I digress. In the end Socrates dies, but as he made clear earlier, holding in place where you ought to be and doing what you ought to do till the end is the greatest example of virtue. I think that if he had caved in and survived this it would have been the greatest Greek tragedy of all.
I want to do Plato's Apology. To get a few things out of the way first in this sense Apology comes from the Greek word apologia, its Greek title, when means defense speech in a legal proceeding. As Plato often did in his writings it's Socrates speaking words Plato wrote later. Sometime he uses this to present his own ideas as if they were Socrates's. We don't really know what happened at the trial. Another student of Socrates, Xenophon, wrote his own Apology that was very different. To be fair to Plato, Xenophon wasn't actually in Athens at the time. He signed up as a mercenary for a coup attempt against the Persian Emperor that went horribly, horribly wrong and was desperately fleeing across Southwest Asia with the most powerful army in the world chasing him at the time of the trial. For simplicity I am just going to go with it and write as if Plato was the court stenographer. For direct quotes I'll give you the Sephonopolis citations which are standard in all editions.
Background:
A few years earlier Athens lost the 27 year Peloponnese War that absolutely wrecked Greece and primed it for the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great to crush it. The War was fought by a coalition of democratic cities led by Athens and a coalition of oligarchic cities under Sparta. When Athens was starved out by a siege the Spartan Army occupied the city and installed an Oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants. Also, I am originating unconfirmed rumors that when the Spartans marched into to the city center of Athens in unison they shouted "THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!" Pass it along.
As a landed citizen Socrates fought as a Hoplite heavy infantryman in several important battles and from all accounts fought bravely. Other important background notes include the trial of the Ten Generals. After a naval victory a storm approached and the commanders failed to launch a rescue attempt as a result. The men were tried as a group instead of individually because the masses were whipped up in a fury even though this was against the Law. Also, the Thirty Tyrants tried to implicate as many other citizens as possible in their crimes to defuse guilt to as many as possible.
Socrates was charged with impiety, not believing in the gods the city believed in, and corrupting the young, a charge sadly missing from our legal system. I decided not to give a blow by blow summery because that was boring even me but rather I will pick out salient points of philosophy and examine them. Early on he tells the story of a childhood friend who went to the Oracle in Delphi to ask Apollo, the Greek God of Wisdom, if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. When his friend returned with the response that there was not, Socrates became troubled and sought out a politician, a craftsman and a poet. He found they knew lots of things he didn't but noted that they weren't as smart as they thought they were. They thought that because they had mastered one thing they had wisdom in all areas, which they didn't. Socrates concludes that the meaning of the Oracle's response was that while other men might know things he didn't, he at least knew he didn't and was therefore teachable. The first step to wisdom is a willingness to learn and an open mind.
As we go along Socrates starts to get into what he thinks the roll of a philosopher should be and how he goes about it and this is where things pick up. Socrates relates that if you had horses you would send them to a horse breeder who could tame and refine them into being the best and most useful horses possible. His question then is if we do that for horses why shouldn't we do that for people? As Socrates goes on he will make it clear that he sees his purpose in life to be like that horse breeder for the men of Athens and help them develop their souls.
Interspersed in here he is cross-examining his accusers and making them look foolish. At 28-b he responds to any who wonder if he regrets his life's work now that he is on trial for his life with is excellent retort. "You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look only to his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man." After mentioning Achillies' actions in revenging the death of his cousin, knowing full well it would cost him his life, because he knew it was what must be done.
We pick up again at 28-e. "This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: whenever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best, or has been placed by his commander, there he must remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace. It would have been a dreadful way to behave, men of Athens, if, at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, I had , at the risk of death, like everyone else, remained at my post where those you elected to command he ordered me, and then, when the god ordered me, as I thought, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others, I had abandoned my post for fear of death or anything else. That would have been a dreadful thing, and then I might truly have justly been brought here for not believing that there are gods, disobeying the Oracle, fearing death, and thinking I was wise when I was not. To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils."
I know I promised to summarize and not transcribe but some of these passages are so beautiful I can't help myself. The first thing to go over is where he relates it to battle. As a Hoplite he, like all land owning middle class, fought in a phalanx formation where heavily armored men with spears pack as tightly together as possible and move as one. As long as everyone stays in place its almost impossible to break. However, one man fleeing can cause the formation to collapse and the battle to be lost. Two of the battles he mentions fighting in were utter routs. Veterans of those battles who routed were sure to have been in the 1000 man jury. This marks the beginning of Socrates' questionable defense strategy of insulting the jury as much as possible.
Socrates then balks at a plea deal of an acquittal in exchange for giving up philosophy and explains his method of walking up to people with the following. Note I switch out the word Athenian with American and city with country because I think its more powerful that way. "Good Sir, you are an American, a citizen of the greatest country with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" He says if anyone disputes his accusation he won't go away until he has interrogated them to his satisfaction. You can begin to see why he is unpopular, someone who runs around full time calling people immoral is bound to piss some people off. If there is one thing he is good at it's pissing people off. Just in case he was not inflammatory enough he starts to explain that this behavior is why he is god's greatest gift to Athens. I am not making that up, he actually explains how being a kind of a jerk makes him the greatest divine gift of all.
To add insult to injury he brings up the trial of the Ten Generals. The way they did the trial was illegal and when Socrates, as a member of the council, voted against it he was nearly arrested and executed along with them. He also points out that since then everyone recognized they shouldn't have done what they did. Socrates brings up the period of the Thirty Tyrants and an instance when he and others were summoned to arrest someone for summary execution and at risk of his own life refused to do it because it was wrong. Apparently he thought telling a jury they were morally inferior to him was a surefire way to be found not guilty. Next he brings up that most of the time when someone is on trial they drag their family with them to weep and wail and beg for mercy to get out of it with a purely emotional strategy. Then he notes he didn't do that because he thinks its wrong, cowardly and corrupts the legal system.
When he is found guilty by a slim majority and the trial moves into the sentencing stage he tells them they are idiots for convicting him. Then he tells them that if the punishment is to fit the crime Athens should give him a mansion and a stipend so he can keep "blessing" them as the gods greatest gift to Athens. Also he tells them again he will never give it up as long as he lives.
When they give him the death penalty he tells them they will so live to regret it and those who voted for him to be killed will forever have his blood on their hands and live with great guilt. Later on he passes up several opportunities to escape and willingly drinks hemlock to see what death is like. This is what I call going out in style.
OK, now to step out of the text. As I noted at the beginning, this was written later and may or may not be accurate. I hope it is because I think the whole thing is great. Regardless of its historical accuracy there is a strong philosophical theme of standing by your principals no matter what. Socrates was concerned with ethics, i.e. becoming a good person. For him the welfare of the soul is far more important than worldly honors or possessions. However, unlike the ascetics that were common both then and now (most religions have some form of monasticism) he doesn't actually condemn material possessions. What he does condemn is the pursuit of them at the expense of the soul. Back to my favorite quote at 29-e, he asks the rhetorical question "Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" For him worldly things become immoral when our pursuit of them takes priority over everything else. I once heard the saying that "Money is good servant but a bad master." A scripture from the Book of Mormon comes to mind, Jacob 2: 18-19, "But before ye seek for riches seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good-to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted."
I can't remember which pre-socratic philosopher it was but one of them lived in a tub in the town square naked, often masturbating and whining that it was so unfair that hunger could not be similarly relieved but rubbing the belly and no I didn't make that up. We know that while Socrates cared little for worldly things he didn't go without them. We know he had a wife and children and also that he was a land owner because he served in the Athenian Army as a Hoplite which was only open to the land owning middle class. Plato by contrast came from a very wealthy family and served as cavalry, which was only open to those who could afford a war horse.
I think Socrates brought up the trial of the Ten Generals to make the point when you give up your principals and give in to external pressure who will live to regret it and to point out how he is able to live guilt free because he has moral fortitude. Socrates is held up and glorified as an ideal man, honest, true and faithful to virtue till the end. An interesting point to ponder is whether or not the story has a happy ending. The book A man for all Seasons covers the story of Thomas More, who was executed for not condoning the apostasy of Henry the VIII. Interestingly book ends with the quote "It is better to be a dead lion than a live mouse." and the film adaptation says "It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion." I am not sure why the movie flipped the moral of the story but I digress. In the end Socrates dies, but as he made clear earlier, holding in place where you ought to be and doing what you ought to do till the end is the greatest example of virtue. I think that if he had caved in and survived this it would have been the greatest Greek tragedy of all.
Quick Note
I am starting to cash posts so that instead of getting seven posts in under 24 hours (like on Saturday) I have something to post on days my muse is out to lunch. Hopefully things will be more consistent now.
Why so little about my personal life?
There are innumerable blogs on which the author chronicles their daily life, and I try to stay away from that on here. To be honest I thought about starting this off by using the literary device of saying a reader asked me I don't about my personal life much at all, prompting this response. But since my reader knows they didn't ask me that I was afraid of getting called on it and losing you. So I am admitting that this is unsolicited just like everything else on here.
In a nutshell I don't because I don't consider it important and because its personal. Everything I write I write because I think it’s important. I am not saying I think I am worthless of that no one cares because I know that's not true. I just don't think it’s the best use of my time. I want my reader to engage their mind thinking about ideas. I don't see how the individual ins and outs and ups and downs of my life will accomplish that where as what I do might.
When I think of the writers who have really influenced me, like Plato, Edmund Bruke, Livy, Patrick Henry, Niccolo Machiavelli, Adam Smith, Kim du Toit, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Victor Davis Hanson and yes, even Karl Marx* (*Note: not everyone is one the list because I agree with them,) none of them did so by cataloging their day to day life. They wrote about ideas that made me think. Thanks what I want to do for you the reader.
In the end, you will get to know who I am far better than if I gave you every detail anyway.
In a nutshell I don't because I don't consider it important and because its personal. Everything I write I write because I think it’s important. I am not saying I think I am worthless of that no one cares because I know that's not true. I just don't think it’s the best use of my time. I want my reader to engage their mind thinking about ideas. I don't see how the individual ins and outs and ups and downs of my life will accomplish that where as what I do might.
When I think of the writers who have really influenced me, like Plato, Edmund Bruke, Livy, Patrick Henry, Niccolo Machiavelli, Adam Smith, Kim du Toit, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Victor Davis Hanson and yes, even Karl Marx* (*Note: not everyone is one the list because I agree with them,) none of them did so by cataloging their day to day life. They wrote about ideas that made me think. Thanks what I want to do for you the reader.
In the end, you will get to know who I am far better than if I gave you every detail anyway.
Historiography
Upon reading the title my reader(s) entered one of two categories: either someone who knows what Historiography is or someone who is reading the entry. Since anyone reading obviously doesn't know what historiography is I'll explain. Historiography is the most boring topic on earth. I am not making that up. Historians, you know, the kind of people who get excited reading about the inner squabbling of Dutch merchant guilds in 17th century Amsterdam find historiography boring. Historiography is the study of the study of History. You heard that right, its the history of people writing history. In the Dr. Seuss book "Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are." he tries to imagine the worst possible fates that could befall someone, Dr. Seuss accurately describes historiography in action in the part about the Bee Watch Watch Watcher Watcher. In fact, I am starting a rumor that the entire inspiration for that book was Dr. Seuss learning what historiography is. Pass it on, its highly possible.
Why then do historians write them? Why is a paper considered worthless garbage if it doesn't start with one? Because its important. Our perceptions change with time and it can be helpful to learn how people in the past thought about the past. One quick example before I get on to my topic, I remember when I was five my parents taking me to see the annual reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. Now we celebrate that battle as perhaps the most important event in our history. But the first commemoration on the anniversary wasn't until the 1820s. A politician running for office drug out the last surviving veterans to honor them for their deeds. One cynical observer at the time remarked that even if there were no survivors the candidate would have exhumed the bodies from the graveyard so he could publicly honor them.
I know macro-historiography sounds boring enough to kill but in the spirit of full disclosure I feel I need to go there. The how and why of writing history has shifted dramatically since the first historians invented the concept. There is such a thing as Academic History that we teach in our universities and that I was trained in. What I write on the blog is not academic history style and I admit that. For one, I write in narrative format as opposed to the more neutral academic tone. I don't usually get into the details of historical disputes (you should thank me because that's historiography.) Technically history is supposed to be an unbiased quest for historical truth but that's just not how it is. Actually I think the biggest kritik of academic style is that its pretentious in claiming to get to the actual truth when we openly admit that our writing will always be a bit biased. Since the mid-19th century History as a discipline has been trying to get itself classed as a social science and the fact that it by nature can't be observed dispassionately or lend itself to repeatable experiments using the scientific method are a few of the many reasons it isn't.
Livy was a very important Roman Historian who was a friend of Julius Caesar. He wrote Ab Urbe Condita, a 142 volume history of Rome that covered its first 745 years. The fact that his work was used heavily as a source by Edward Gibbon, one of the fathers of modern history, in his six volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is even more impressive when you consider that out of 142 volumes only 35 survive intact. However, were Livy writing today he wouldn't be able to get his articles published by any self respecting academic journal. That's because Livy spells out at the very beginning that he is writing history in order to provide moral instruction to what he sees as a morally decaying Rome. He tells a lot of myths about the early days of Rome which he may or may not have made up. If you want to see what I am talking about check out my post on Jacques-Louis David, who painted lots of paintings to give moral lessons using stories from Livy.
That's pretty much what I do except I go one step further and try to relate it to today's politics. I use a conversational tone to reach laymen bored with other history writing so history is more accessible. Perhaps its best to describe what I do as more using History instead of writing History.
Why then do historians write them? Why is a paper considered worthless garbage if it doesn't start with one? Because its important. Our perceptions change with time and it can be helpful to learn how people in the past thought about the past. One quick example before I get on to my topic, I remember when I was five my parents taking me to see the annual reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. Now we celebrate that battle as perhaps the most important event in our history. But the first commemoration on the anniversary wasn't until the 1820s. A politician running for office drug out the last surviving veterans to honor them for their deeds. One cynical observer at the time remarked that even if there were no survivors the candidate would have exhumed the bodies from the graveyard so he could publicly honor them.
I know macro-historiography sounds boring enough to kill but in the spirit of full disclosure I feel I need to go there. The how and why of writing history has shifted dramatically since the first historians invented the concept. There is such a thing as Academic History that we teach in our universities and that I was trained in. What I write on the blog is not academic history style and I admit that. For one, I write in narrative format as opposed to the more neutral academic tone. I don't usually get into the details of historical disputes (you should thank me because that's historiography.) Technically history is supposed to be an unbiased quest for historical truth but that's just not how it is. Actually I think the biggest kritik of academic style is that its pretentious in claiming to get to the actual truth when we openly admit that our writing will always be a bit biased. Since the mid-19th century History as a discipline has been trying to get itself classed as a social science and the fact that it by nature can't be observed dispassionately or lend itself to repeatable experiments using the scientific method are a few of the many reasons it isn't.
Livy was a very important Roman Historian who was a friend of Julius Caesar. He wrote Ab Urbe Condita, a 142 volume history of Rome that covered its first 745 years. The fact that his work was used heavily as a source by Edward Gibbon, one of the fathers of modern history, in his six volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is even more impressive when you consider that out of 142 volumes only 35 survive intact. However, were Livy writing today he wouldn't be able to get his articles published by any self respecting academic journal. That's because Livy spells out at the very beginning that he is writing history in order to provide moral instruction to what he sees as a morally decaying Rome. He tells a lot of myths about the early days of Rome which he may or may not have made up. If you want to see what I am talking about check out my post on Jacques-Louis David, who painted lots of paintings to give moral lessons using stories from Livy.
That's pretty much what I do except I go one step further and try to relate it to today's politics. I use a conversational tone to reach laymen bored with other history writing so history is more accessible. Perhaps its best to describe what I do as more using History instead of writing History.
A Clear and Present Danger From the South: Part 1
I want to talk about a mostly forgotten footnote of history for a minute. On the Blog I don't torture my reader(s) with history gratuitously; there is always a point I am trying to make. I don't think I will get to it today hence naming this blog part 1.
In 1916 Mexico was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Pancho Villa led his revolutionary Villista's in the north of Mexico while Emiliano Zapata led in the south. While technically called a revolution, by this point it was more of a civil war between generals without a legitimate government. With this high volatility the US did the only prudent thing and looked to protect its own interests while things sorted out. The US supported different generals at different times as the situation developed. In 1914 the US Navy captured and occupied the port city of Veracruz for six months because US Sailors protecting American citizens and property came under attack from the Government troops there.
In 1916 however, Pancho Villa started targeting Americans. In January his men took 17 American railroad workers and shot them. In March Villa was screwed over by his arms supplier in Columbus, New Mexico. In response Villa attacked the town and the military detachment there. They killed 18 Americans, wounded 8 and burned the town down. In response to the violence Woodrow Wilson ordered John Pershing to lead a military expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition saw the first use of the airplane by the US Military, Curtiss JN-4s were used for reconnaissance.
There was not much direct action taken against Villa's forces. Not surprisingly, the one engagement of the Villistas of note involved George Patton, Patton doing all of the killing (a general and two body guards) with his ivory handled revolvers and then Patton carving notches into them. Actually, US forces mostly fought forces loyal to the "government". Apparently Machiavelli's maxim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not well known in Mexico.
In 1917 Pershing and his forces were withdrawn due to the entry of the US into World War I. Pershing would lead the American Expiditionary Forces in France. The arrival of American Doughboys at the critical Second Battle of the Marne broke Germany's last offensive and with it, Germany's last hope for victory. George Patton was the first officer assigned to the new US Tank Corps and literally wrote the book on US armored forces. Sporadic fighting would continue on the border between National Guard troops and Villistas for a few more years. Pancho Villa eventually lost but was pardoned by the Government and later (probably) assassinated by it.
Pershing would publicly claim the operation was a success but had more than a few things to say in private. He complained that Wilson put to many restrictions on him, leaving him unable to complete his mission. Pershing admitted to being "Outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."
Clearly, Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War and later commanders in Vietnam could sympathize with being in a situation where political leaders put so many restrictions on the military as to make victory unattainable. The Korean War has never ended and every few years skirmishes break out and a few people die. Only a few days ago in fact, a South Korean Navy ship sank near contested waters due to an explosion. Though officials won't speculate on what caused the explosion the North Koreans have a habit of shooting artillery into that area at random, and had been doing so earlier in the day. 46 S. Korean Sailors are missing and feared dead. MacArthur argued strongly for taking the war into China to secure complete victory and was relieved by Truman because of it. Right or wrong, we didn't win the Korean War and people are still dying.
But that's a side issue. Tomorrow or the next day we get to what I want to discuss.
In 1916 Mexico was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Pancho Villa led his revolutionary Villista's in the north of Mexico while Emiliano Zapata led in the south. While technically called a revolution, by this point it was more of a civil war between generals without a legitimate government. With this high volatility the US did the only prudent thing and looked to protect its own interests while things sorted out. The US supported different generals at different times as the situation developed. In 1914 the US Navy captured and occupied the port city of Veracruz for six months because US Sailors protecting American citizens and property came under attack from the Government troops there.
In 1916 however, Pancho Villa started targeting Americans. In January his men took 17 American railroad workers and shot them. In March Villa was screwed over by his arms supplier in Columbus, New Mexico. In response Villa attacked the town and the military detachment there. They killed 18 Americans, wounded 8 and burned the town down. In response to the violence Woodrow Wilson ordered John Pershing to lead a military expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition saw the first use of the airplane by the US Military, Curtiss JN-4s were used for reconnaissance.
There was not much direct action taken against Villa's forces. Not surprisingly, the one engagement of the Villistas of note involved George Patton, Patton doing all of the killing (a general and two body guards) with his ivory handled revolvers and then Patton carving notches into them. Actually, US forces mostly fought forces loyal to the "government". Apparently Machiavelli's maxim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not well known in Mexico.
In 1917 Pershing and his forces were withdrawn due to the entry of the US into World War I. Pershing would lead the American Expiditionary Forces in France. The arrival of American Doughboys at the critical Second Battle of the Marne broke Germany's last offensive and with it, Germany's last hope for victory. George Patton was the first officer assigned to the new US Tank Corps and literally wrote the book on US armored forces. Sporadic fighting would continue on the border between National Guard troops and Villistas for a few more years. Pancho Villa eventually lost but was pardoned by the Government and later (probably) assassinated by it.
Pershing would publicly claim the operation was a success but had more than a few things to say in private. He complained that Wilson put to many restrictions on him, leaving him unable to complete his mission. Pershing admitted to being "Outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."
Clearly, Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War and later commanders in Vietnam could sympathize with being in a situation where political leaders put so many restrictions on the military as to make victory unattainable. The Korean War has never ended and every few years skirmishes break out and a few people die. Only a few days ago in fact, a South Korean Navy ship sank near contested waters due to an explosion. Though officials won't speculate on what caused the explosion the North Koreans have a habit of shooting artillery into that area at random, and had been doing so earlier in the day. 46 S. Korean Sailors are missing and feared dead. MacArthur argued strongly for taking the war into China to secure complete victory and was relieved by Truman because of it. Right or wrong, we didn't win the Korean War and people are still dying.
But that's a side issue. Tomorrow or the next day we get to what I want to discuss.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
On Christianity
I started this blog to talk about things that interest me. Growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I have been a life long Christian. I have decided every Sunday to write on topics salient to Christianity. I am not completely sure what form these will take, some Christian theological topics interest me and some contemporary Christian issues interest me as well. It should be fun.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Freemasons
To clarify, I am not a mason but I have done quite a bit of research on the topic. I think I know Freemasonry about as well as you can from the outside. In large part it's just a fraternity-a private club for men that you have to be invited into. Freemasonry definitely has a charter, specific goals they are working towards. The exact wording is confidential but you can get a pretty good idea from examining its roots.
How far back proto-freemasonry goes back is unknown. There is evidence that some form of it existed in the Middle Ages among stone masons who eventually started including the nobles they worked for. Modern Freemasonry traces its origins to the 1600s when local lodges opened up and was officially founded in London in 1717 with the first Grand Lodge of England. I think that we want to understand Freemasonry today the best thing to do is understand the climate it was born in. The 1600s was one of the worst centuries in Europe due to the Wars of Religion. Catholics and Protestants did not freaking get along. Off the top of my head you had the 30 Years War, the 80 Years War, the English Civil War, the Bishops War, the Three Kingdoms War and the Commonwealth, (technically the bit between wars and not an actual war not because there wasn't heavy religious persecution, but because it was one sided) and the persecution of the Huguenots (there was some fighting but mostly it was a one way blood bath.) Somewhere around half the population of Europe was killed fighting over religion.
The Enlightenment was also getting going about this time and people began to realize that we needed to stop using religion to divide us and use it to bring us together for the betterment of mankind. Out of this came concepts of democracy and freedom of religion that is reflected in our own Constitution. Both of those concepts are also very important to Masonry and are things they want to see spread around the world.
I became close friends with a Mason while working in Kentucky on oil rigs. Brother Jim was the baptist minister for some of my coworkers and I began to attend his sermons after I had finished my own meetings. Baptist services were run very differently than the LDS ones I grew with and the teachings were also different. The differences between the two theologies are to numerous to list but there was clear common ground. In the morning when I went to the LDS branch are heard of Jesus Christ's love and was encouraged to love my fellow man. When I went to the Baptist sermon I heard of Jesus's love and was encouraged to share that love with my fellow man. I was timid at first about talking to the minister because I have been warned about the counter-productivity of "bible bashing" with other faiths whole life. As I started to talk to Brother Jim we began to discuss a variety of religious topics and recognized that although we differed on most of the particulars we were both good Christian men trying our best to follow Him. I was shocked at how well we got along considering we both held some views the other considered wrong.
My employment in Kentucky ended abruptly when I found myself in the local ICU. It was about 10pm when I called my Bishop to ask for a Priesthood blessing. In addition to the late hour there was a tornado warning that caused every part of the hospital except the ICU to be relocated to shelter. I was 2000 miles from home, lucky to be alive but alone so I called Brother Jim for words of comfort. His words of comfort to me were "I am 45 minutes away so I'll be there in an hour." It was interesting because we had talked about the different notions of Priesthood our two faiths held. Most Christians believe in the "Priesthood of all believers" that originated with Martin Luther and I, as a Mormon, believe in a direct line of power and authority from Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. I believe that the (Mormon) Melchizedek Priesthood has actual power to preform miracles. When Brother Jim got to me he frankly admitted that the best he could do was pray for me and ask Jesus Christ to use his power to heal me. Though not the same as the Priesthood blessing I would later receive I was truly grateful for Brother Jim's prayer. The last night we were together he told me he was a Mason and everything about him made sense. His attitude about focusing on similarities rather than differences was part of what he believed as a Mason.
But the greatest example of Freemasonry comes out of Nazi Germany. At a time when all Germany praised Hitler as the new Messiah (even though he despised Christianity) the Masons opposed him because they recognized his evil from the beginning. They stood against the persecution of the Jews and for their troubles were rounded up and sent to concentration camps alongside the Jews. When a nation cast aside its principals Masons stood firm.
There is a lot about the inner workings of Masonry I don't know (as it should be) but how bad can an organization that stood alone against Hitler be?
How far back proto-freemasonry goes back is unknown. There is evidence that some form of it existed in the Middle Ages among stone masons who eventually started including the nobles they worked for. Modern Freemasonry traces its origins to the 1600s when local lodges opened up and was officially founded in London in 1717 with the first Grand Lodge of England. I think that we want to understand Freemasonry today the best thing to do is understand the climate it was born in. The 1600s was one of the worst centuries in Europe due to the Wars of Religion. Catholics and Protestants did not freaking get along. Off the top of my head you had the 30 Years War, the 80 Years War, the English Civil War, the Bishops War, the Three Kingdoms War and the Commonwealth, (technically the bit between wars and not an actual war not because there wasn't heavy religious persecution, but because it was one sided) and the persecution of the Huguenots (there was some fighting but mostly it was a one way blood bath.) Somewhere around half the population of Europe was killed fighting over religion.
The Enlightenment was also getting going about this time and people began to realize that we needed to stop using religion to divide us and use it to bring us together for the betterment of mankind. Out of this came concepts of democracy and freedom of religion that is reflected in our own Constitution. Both of those concepts are also very important to Masonry and are things they want to see spread around the world.
I became close friends with a Mason while working in Kentucky on oil rigs. Brother Jim was the baptist minister for some of my coworkers and I began to attend his sermons after I had finished my own meetings. Baptist services were run very differently than the LDS ones I grew with and the teachings were also different. The differences between the two theologies are to numerous to list but there was clear common ground. In the morning when I went to the LDS branch are heard of Jesus Christ's love and was encouraged to love my fellow man. When I went to the Baptist sermon I heard of Jesus's love and was encouraged to share that love with my fellow man. I was timid at first about talking to the minister because I have been warned about the counter-productivity of "bible bashing" with other faiths whole life. As I started to talk to Brother Jim we began to discuss a variety of religious topics and recognized that although we differed on most of the particulars we were both good Christian men trying our best to follow Him. I was shocked at how well we got along considering we both held some views the other considered wrong.
My employment in Kentucky ended abruptly when I found myself in the local ICU. It was about 10pm when I called my Bishop to ask for a Priesthood blessing. In addition to the late hour there was a tornado warning that caused every part of the hospital except the ICU to be relocated to shelter. I was 2000 miles from home, lucky to be alive but alone so I called Brother Jim for words of comfort. His words of comfort to me were "I am 45 minutes away so I'll be there in an hour." It was interesting because we had talked about the different notions of Priesthood our two faiths held. Most Christians believe in the "Priesthood of all believers" that originated with Martin Luther and I, as a Mormon, believe in a direct line of power and authority from Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. I believe that the (Mormon) Melchizedek Priesthood has actual power to preform miracles. When Brother Jim got to me he frankly admitted that the best he could do was pray for me and ask Jesus Christ to use his power to heal me. Though not the same as the Priesthood blessing I would later receive I was truly grateful for Brother Jim's prayer. The last night we were together he told me he was a Mason and everything about him made sense. His attitude about focusing on similarities rather than differences was part of what he believed as a Mason.
But the greatest example of Freemasonry comes out of Nazi Germany. At a time when all Germany praised Hitler as the new Messiah (even though he despised Christianity) the Masons opposed him because they recognized his evil from the beginning. They stood against the persecution of the Jews and for their troubles were rounded up and sent to concentration camps alongside the Jews. When a nation cast aside its principals Masons stood firm.
There is a lot about the inner workings of Masonry I don't know (as it should be) but how bad can an organization that stood alone against Hitler be?
Notes from our History Part 3: Avoiding Enslavement
Stripped of every civil tool the colonists turned to the one source of power the British had left them and began to outfit their militias with more firepower. Realizing what was about to happen the British sent an expeditionary force to seize the militia armories and disarm the colonists. Two lanterns in the tower of the Old North Church sent men like Paul Revere racing through the countryside shouting "The British are coming! The British are coming! To take your shot and powder!" On Lexington Green in the predawn hours of April 19th, 77 men used their last recourse to stand up to the best army in the world. The colonists saw disarmament as their last resort to ever resist the British being taken away. Other colonies realized they no longer had inalienable rights and that everything they had could be arbitrarily taken on the whim of the Crown.
I realize I have done a wholly inadequate job of conveying the panic the colonists felt in the lead up so I just want you try to look at this from their prospective. The actions of the British Government put them in such a state that they were desperately peering down the flash pans of their flintlocks looking for their last flickering glimmer of freedom. These were not destitute peasants rioting for bread to eat, like in the French Revolution for example, (Louis the XVI was arrested when a bread riot got out of hand and stormed the palace) but the upstanding and prosperous citizens of the colonies. If you think nothing like this could happen today in a constitutionally run country because now people have certain inalienable rights set forth in law, remember, so did the colonists. English law has recognised a bill of rights since the Middle Ages, longer than any other legal system.
How this applies today:
I can't stress enough that things only got violent after every other possible option was taken away. I also can't stress enough that every other option was taken away. We owe it to ourselves and to our posterity to exhaust every legal and peaceful means to rectify the sad state of affairs. That said, if what happened to the colonists ever happens to us we owe it to our posterity to not shrink from what must be done. I really really want to avoid that. Let the Government know this November that disregarding us will not be tolerated. If we don't we are risking enslavement not only for ourselves but our children.
To paraphrase Patton, "When you stick your hand into a pile of goo that a moment before was your children's children's liberty, you'll know what to do."
I realize I have done a wholly inadequate job of conveying the panic the colonists felt in the lead up so I just want you try to look at this from their prospective. The actions of the British Government put them in such a state that they were desperately peering down the flash pans of their flintlocks looking for their last flickering glimmer of freedom. These were not destitute peasants rioting for bread to eat, like in the French Revolution for example, (Louis the XVI was arrested when a bread riot got out of hand and stormed the palace) but the upstanding and prosperous citizens of the colonies. If you think nothing like this could happen today in a constitutionally run country because now people have certain inalienable rights set forth in law, remember, so did the colonists. English law has recognised a bill of rights since the Middle Ages, longer than any other legal system.
How this applies today:
I can't stress enough that things only got violent after every other possible option was taken away. I also can't stress enough that every other option was taken away. We owe it to ourselves and to our posterity to exhaust every legal and peaceful means to rectify the sad state of affairs. That said, if what happened to the colonists ever happens to us we owe it to our posterity to not shrink from what must be done. I really really want to avoid that. Let the Government know this November that disregarding us will not be tolerated. If we don't we are risking enslavement not only for ourselves but our children.
To paraphrase Patton, "When you stick your hand into a pile of goo that a moment before was your children's children's liberty, you'll know what to do."
Friday, March 26, 2010
Jacques-Louis David
I am going to take a break from history and politics to focus on something uplifting. Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) had an amazing life. He is probably the only person to thrive under the four distinct regimes France went through in a few years. He was popular before the Revolution, was highly prominent during the initial republic and terror. Not only does get to claim the title of being one of the few friends Robespierre didn't kill but probably the only surviving friend of his not to be executed with him. He was Napoleon's court painter and after the monarchy was restored he was offered a job working for the new King, which he turned down for ideological reasons, preferring self imposed exile.
Enough with the bio, now its time for the Art. I like David's works on stories from mythology. They each exists to teach a moral lesson and as time goes on his beliefs shift so does the overall messages of the paintings. First he extolls the male virtue of selfless service to the Patri or state.
The Oath of the Horatii:
As related in Livy's Ab Urbe Condita during the early days of Rome triplets fought another set of triplets from Alba Longa to decide the outcome of the war. Two of the brothers are killed but the last one wins the fight and saves Rome from enslavement.
The Death of Socrates:
As related in Plato's Apology Socrates accepts his death sentence and ignores pleas from friends to escape and willingly drinks poison thinking that death will be an adventure because he's never died before. This is after he insulted the jury repeatedly during the trial.
The Lictors bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons:
According to Livy, Brutus was instrumental in overthrowing the last King of Rome and establishing the Republic. When he finds out his own sons are in collusion with the former King to overthrow the Republic Brutus chooses loyalty to the state and has them executed.
All of these are about male virtue and the glorification thereof. Two of them come from Livy, who though a historian, saw history's usefulness as to provide moral instruction, namely absolute loyalty to the state above personal obligations. These paintings are misogynist in that the women are all crying in a dark corner, lacking virtue.
Helen and Paris:
From Greek myth David depicts Helen, the woman that caused the destruction of Troy. Paris is depicted as an innocent boy and David does a wonderful job of depicting Helen as way more of a prostitute than even completely nude women.
Post-Robespierre David spent some time in jail with only his wife to visit him. His love for his wife and her womanly virtue grew considerably and when he got out and started painting he reversed his message. Women's status as peacemakers curbing men's destructive tendencies, even at personal risk, is depicted.
The Sabine Women:
Back to Livy, in the early days of Rome their were lots of men of warrior age but almost no women. Seeing a solution they attacked the Sabine tribe and took their women. A year later the Sabine men came to get their women back. As the battle heated up the women ran into the middle to stop their kinsmen and former husbands from killing their new husbands.
Mars disarmed by Venus:
This is my favorite painting and no, it has nothing to do with the fact that everyone is naked. I really like the sharp and crisp colors. The subject is what is most beautiful about it. Mars, God of War is handing over his weapons because of the love of Veneus, Goddess of Love. He doesn't surrender completely and keeps his spear but gives up his warring days to "make love, not war." This expresses the hope that eventually love will conquer war with virtuous women leading the way.
Should I keep my day job or become an art critic?
Notes from our History Part 2: Risking Enslavement
The Colonists described the status quo and their position in it as "Risking Enslavement." Before you roll your eyes at the colonists for being melodramatic remember this: many of them were slave owners, or, by a different name, engine of wealth owners. Engine of wealth owners made their living by driving their engines of wealth as efficiently as possible and not by making them happy.
The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.
The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.
Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.
The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.
What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.
This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.
The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.
The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.
Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.
The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.
What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.
This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.
Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth
"No taxation without representation!" This little gem from elementary school is a product of the sad reality that usually we overgeneralize history for the mass market to the point of inaccuracy. From this statement the logical conclusion is that the colonists were pissed off about the monetary ramifications of new taxes; which makes them look both greedy, and, since the taxes were not that high, unreasonable.
The colonists themselves used the term "Engines of Wealth" to describe how they thought the Crown was starting to view them. Since both Parliament and the King largely ignored their opinion and just passed new taxes they came to the conclusion that they were seen only as workers who needed to produce money for the Crown. The difference between a citizen and an engine of wealth is huge. One is served by the government and the other serves the government. One needs freedom and the other needs more taxes.
What this means for us today:
Where this starts to apply is when we consider the results when the Government over-commits to social programs and has to fight to stay in the black by desperately taxing everything that moves with a motion tax and everything that doesn't with a parking ticket. It's a known fact that the British National Healthcare System (NHS) is horribly broke and needs new sources of income. See the above two examples, they are a few of many.
Next time the long term consequences of the engine of wealth mentality.
The colonists themselves used the term "Engines of Wealth" to describe how they thought the Crown was starting to view them. Since both Parliament and the King largely ignored their opinion and just passed new taxes they came to the conclusion that they were seen only as workers who needed to produce money for the Crown. The difference between a citizen and an engine of wealth is huge. One is served by the government and the other serves the government. One needs freedom and the other needs more taxes.
What this means for us today:
Where this starts to apply is when we consider the results when the Government over-commits to social programs and has to fight to stay in the black by desperately taxing everything that moves with a motion tax and everything that doesn't with a parking ticket. It's a known fact that the British National Healthcare System (NHS) is horribly broke and needs new sources of income. See the above two examples, they are a few of many.
Next time the long term consequences of the engine of wealth mentality.
Notes from our History, the mini-series.
America is undergoing a huge transformation. There is no denying this but what the end result will be remains unclear. I can't even say if its going to the right or to the left at this point. Clearly the Democrats in power have switched from the old American Democrat platform to the Social Democrat platform that dominates Europe today. The Social Democrat ideology is to bring sweeping social programs to the populace through legislative reform, (As opposed to its cousins Communism and National Socialism which seek to bring sweeping social change through violent revolution.) As a result we are seeing for the first time mass grassroots mobilization of the normally passive Conservative movement. In the coming years we may see a backlash against the (Social) Democrats so severe as to send America careening to the right. It's just too soon to tell.
In times of uncertainty I look back to history for guidance from a similar situation. While I am a very tiny cog in society (really more like a nanocog) and have no more ability to change the flow of history than a pine needle can alter the tides I want to share with you what I got from my field trip to the past.
From 1765-1775 America stood at a crossroads as well. The new changes didn't begin to solidify really until 1783-1789. Starting in 1765 the British government started reversing their long-stand policy of salutary neglect of the American Colonies by adding taxes and taking more control. Up until that fateful morning of April 19th 1775 all indicators were that the North American colonies (including Canada) were about to be brought under the firm control of the Crown. We all know this was reversed when the colonists started shooting but the lead up is the interesting part.
Next time: Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth
In times of uncertainty I look back to history for guidance from a similar situation. While I am a very tiny cog in society (really more like a nanocog) and have no more ability to change the flow of history than a pine needle can alter the tides I want to share with you what I got from my field trip to the past.
From 1765-1775 America stood at a crossroads as well. The new changes didn't begin to solidify really until 1783-1789. Starting in 1765 the British government started reversing their long-stand policy of salutary neglect of the American Colonies by adding taxes and taking more control. Up until that fateful morning of April 19th 1775 all indicators were that the North American colonies (including Canada) were about to be brought under the firm control of the Crown. We all know this was reversed when the colonists started shooting but the lead up is the interesting part.
Next time: Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth
Back
After a long absence I am retuning to blogging. I have been working on other things including my novel but I am not 100% I will ever refine it enough so that I can put it into the public domain and admit to writing it. If I can help one person with my writing it'll all be worth it. The trick now is to get one person to read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
