There is much debate and discussion on this topic in the news today, especially with the comments from McDonnell and Barbour, both GOP governors from Southern States. While both of these governors have seen their thoughts and words taken out of context (especially Barbour's), it is simply not possible to say with any accuracy that the Civil War was NOT about slavery in America.
Let me start my thoughts with this: While there is a degree of revisionism in the attitude that the South left the Union over the question of "State's rights", there is an equally revisionist position in the attitude that Lincoln and the North fought the war to free Southern Blacks from the bonds of slavery. One cannot attack one side of this coin without understanding the other.
In my youth, I often argued the "state's rights" cause of the war. Slavery was an issue, no question, but it was only part of the picture. Slavery, tariffs, Congressional compromises made outside of Constitutional standards, and the growing perception that each side of the North/South line was working to impose its views on the other were all equal reasons for the conflicts inevitable beginning. I supported this position with the evidence that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America provided for the eventual elimination of slavery after a period of ten years from the conclusion of hostilities with the Union. I also used the Vice President of the CSA, Alexander Stephens, as an example of the "moderate" position of some Confederates because of his stated position that "State's rights" were the cause of his support for the CSA.
In the years since, I have come to realise that both the Constitution of the CSA and Stephen's positions after the war were terrible examples, because both emphatically supported slavery as the primary cause of the war and the Southern cause. The Constitution specifically prohibited any act that would limit or eliminate the ability of a citizen of the CSA to own Negros as "property", and Stephens gave a long, and entirely preserved speech in Savannah, GA, detailing (amongst other things) the FACT that negro servitude was inherently part of the natural order and was emphatic in his position that Thomas Jefferson was 100% WRONG in his position that all men were created equal... the negro is naturally subservient to the superior white race.
Understanding the above, I am forced to conclude that the only way slavery would have been eliminated in the Confederacy was through the process of constitutional amendment as detailed in the Constitution itself, and since the vote was denied to blacks as a matter of course throughout the CSA, the possibility of such an event was highly unlikely. While Stephens championed the cause of allowing States to determine their own status as Free or Slave, he wasn't able to keep the Constitution from being written in such a manner that allowed the entry of a "free state" into the Confederacy, and the owning of slaves was protected under the Constitution, regardless of a State's position on the subject... making the whole point rather moot.
Now, regardless of what was said after the war was over, both Stephens and Jefferson Davis are known to have stated very clearly that SLAVERY was the cause they were defending and protecting when they took their positions in the Confederate government, and it is historical fact that Davis, while executing his duties as President of the Confederacy, made many of the same command decisions that he so reviled in the actions of Lincoln, including the suspension of habeas corpus, conscription, impressment, and the institution of an income tax. Thus, my position today is that the Southern effort during the American Civil War was primarily to preserve and protect the institution of slavery within the Confederate States, with ample evidence from the Constitution of the Confederacy and the stated position of it's two highest elected leaders to help make that case clear.
Now, can modern leaders and politicians support the memorializing of those who fought for the defense of the Confederacy? Certainly they can. It is simple fact that 89% of everyone that fought for the South never owned a slave, and the 11% that had were mostly officers and elected officials of wealth and means. The average Johnny Reb cared no more for the defense of an officer's lifestyle than Billy Yank did for his... but the perception that the Union was dictating the manner in which the citizens of the Southern States should and would lead their lives was very real, and very offensive, to the common soldier. They were fighting to defend their homes, farms and families, even if they didn't have slaves working under them. It is my opinion that the common "rank and file" soldier saw the War as one of "Northern Aggression" more than a defense of slavery.
It is my opinion that the honoring and memorializing of such efforts be combined with an understanding that, while the effort was noble and honest, it was NOT morally justifiable. In easy-to-grasp terms, these men fought honorably for the wrong side of the conflict. To condemn the efforts of more modern military leaders, such as Erwin Rommel or Heinz Guderian, or Georgy Zhukov for the Soviets, because they supported and defended immoral and tyrannical regimes, yet support the efforts of Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, or Jefferson Davis is simply hypocrisy in action and words. One cannot separate the immoral causes being defended from the men fighting to defend them, even if the culpability for the defense can be removed. In short, one cannot memorialize and honor the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for their country without acknowledging the immoral and unjust nature of the cause they defended.
Now, for those that decry and deride the "Southern Pride" position of many Southern States, the same is true: One cannot ignore certain historical facts when discussing the Union's position (and especially Lincoln's stated opinion), simply because the "North won".
Shouting from the mountain-tops about the racist-nature of such symbols as the Confederate flag (be it the "Stars and Bars" or the Confederate battle flag) is unsupportable in a strictly historical sense, because the institution of slavery existed for far longer under the Stars and Stripes than it ever did under the Confederate flags, and was just as vigorously defended by "American" policy and planning, as well.
This hypocritical and revisionist view of history is just as true when seen in light of the opinion that Lincoln fought the war to "free the slaves" or that he was an abolitionist in his views. Lincoln did all that he did with the understanding that slavery was immoral, but NOT ILLEGAL, and that his primary purpose as President was to preserve the Union... not abolish slavery. Furthermore, it seems the popular opinion of today's "politically correct" liberal leadership that Lincoln was an advocate of equality under the law... a forerunner of the civil rights movement, if you will... which I feel is patently false. I offer this example to make my case, which is taken from the 1858 debate held in Charleston, IL:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the Negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of Negroes. " Abraham Lincoln, Sept 18, 1858 Charleston, Illinois
I think this is a very telling example of just what Lincoln thought about the issue of race before and during the Civil War. Many people continue to make the case that Lincoln "freed the slaves" when he made the executive orders in 1862 and 1863 that became known as the Emancipation Proclamation, which is also not entirely true. The States of Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Delaware, West Virginia and Maryland (all slave states) were exempt from the order, and slavery remained a protected, legal institution in those states until the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect in Dec of 1865. Furthermore, 48 counties in Virginia, the City of New Orleans and 13 other Louisiana parishes were also exempt from the orders. Finally, the biggest flaw of the Proclamation was that it "freed" slaves in certain states and in areas were Union military forces had gained control, but did not make "slavery" illegal at all... a fact that didn't change until Dec of 1865.
I'm not denying the fact that Lincoln's orders freed more than 4 million men and women from bondage, but it did this in a way that could not be enforced or even enacted because it only applied to areas outside of Union control. It is pure speculation as to how many slaves actually enjoyed "freedom from servitude" as a result of the Proclamation and not as a direct result of Union Army occupation of Confederate territory.
I rank Lincoln as one of our greatest leaders... ever. He is a "Top Five" President in my book, and will probably find his place at #2, right behind Washington himself, in almost every category we care to discuss. However, I rank this position with the clear understanding that what he did as President was for the preservation, protection, and benefit of the UNION as a whole, and not for the morally-superior position that slavery was evil and needed to be ended, once and for all, and certainly not for furthering the promise laid down by Jefferson in the formative years of the nation that "all men are created equal" and deserving of equal rights and justice under the law. He was an outspoken support of an institutional separation of races, and didn't seem to feel that even voting rights should be equal. This is NOT the contemporary image that most critics of Southern "pride" promote when invoking Lincoln's words and efforts during the Civil War.
So, in conclusion, I maintain that any support for the glorification and memorializing of Confederate leaders and soldiers be tempered with the understanding that their cause was immoral and unjust MUST BE MIRRORED by those taking the opposite position. The leadership of some anti-slavery movements in the North (John Brown, for example) were every bit as immoral and unjust as the institutions they were fighting, and not every Union leader or official was advocating the "emancipation" of blacks in the same way we understand it today.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
More texts from Ryan...
So, to share some of what Ryan is texting in his busy, jet-setting lifestyle, where the Bund is too much work to attend...
(Kidding... don't fuss)
Ryan mentions the almost perpetual disdain he holds for anything stemming from public broadcasting, especially National Public Radio. The bias is undeniable, and almost always apparent, but in this case, I'm not sure Ryan has it 100% right.
Ryan sent a text to me stating that he heard a program on NPR stating that the taxes that drove the American Revolution and the colonist's effort of independence were lower than they were after the effort was won and independence secured. He seemed to take this as an affront to his perception that tyranny and injustice were the root of our need to break our ties with Great Britain.
There is no more of an ardent admirer of what the Founding Fathers did for their constituents in 1775 through 1783 than myself, but the facts are still facts, and I agree that the primary cause of the colonist's complaints to London were not about the taxes or their amounts... but in the manner in which our grievances over them were (or were not) addressed by Parliament. To argue that the taxes paid prior to 1775 were more for Americans than they were for people living in London is patently false. Total taxes prior to the outbreak of hostilities at Concord and Lexington were less than 7%... while Londoners were paying as much as 17% and the Irish were paying 32%. At the height of American taxation with the initial implementation of the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts (all later lumped together and labeled the Intolerable Acts), the cost to the American on the street was nearly half of what British subjects were paying across the Atlantic.
What drove the "Revolution" far more than taxes was the declaration by Thomas Hutchinson, Governor of Mass., that he and all his judges and lawyers were to be paid directly by the Crown, and no authority would remain with the colonial legislature. This directive was followed quickly with similar arrangements in New York, New Jersey, Conn., Maryland and Pennsylvania, and ALL colonial governorships after 1775. What taxes we were paying (regardless of amount) and the civil authority we answered to no longer had any recourse or responsibility to the people paying them... meaning the Americans. By 1774, all civil authority in the American colonies had reverted to the Crown and to Parliament, and the Americans had no say.
With the renewed interest in the "Tea Party" through resurgent political awareness happening today, the image of rebels fighting against unjust and overbearing tax burdens is an easy one to fall into, and I'm sure the NPR pundits were falling into that trap. They see the Tea Party movement as embracing the image of the "Boston Tea Party" because Americans felt the tax on tea too great to pay... when in fact, the average American would have had to drink 40 gallons of tea before they paid even one penny in taxes (my source for this is from David McCullough's fantastic work, "1776"). The problem came from the unfair nature of the tax, and the lack of means for Americans to take their case to Parliament, since the colonies had no elected members to the House of Commons, and were only represented by the few Governors of the colonies that also held seats in the House of Lords (not a very balanced form of representation).
So, if the NPR program said the revolution was about taxes, then I say they were 100% wrong. Taxes were a factor, but only in the manner in which those taxes were levied and enforced only in the colonies (since it was expected for us Americans to pay for the war fought on our behalf against the French) and with no means of redress or repeal from the people being taxed. I think that is a very good analogy to what is happening today within the Tea Party movement itself.
If, on the other hand, Ryan is denying that the taxes were LESS for the Americans than they were for the Brits, then I maintain that he is wrong. If taxes didn't rise after 1783, and new and very unpopular taxes weren't enacted by the American government, then I'd ask for a detailed explanation as to what caused the "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1791, if it wasn't new and higher taxes imposed by the government than what the people had known under British rule.
Understanding that historical facts are still facts is vitally important when talking about politics, and understanding those facts allows us to see the fallacy of the liberal argument against the Tea Party movement without having to make the untenable argument that the facts are not accurate in the first place.
(Kidding... don't fuss)
Ryan mentions the almost perpetual disdain he holds for anything stemming from public broadcasting, especially National Public Radio. The bias is undeniable, and almost always apparent, but in this case, I'm not sure Ryan has it 100% right.
Ryan sent a text to me stating that he heard a program on NPR stating that the taxes that drove the American Revolution and the colonist's effort of independence were lower than they were after the effort was won and independence secured. He seemed to take this as an affront to his perception that tyranny and injustice were the root of our need to break our ties with Great Britain.
There is no more of an ardent admirer of what the Founding Fathers did for their constituents in 1775 through 1783 than myself, but the facts are still facts, and I agree that the primary cause of the colonist's complaints to London were not about the taxes or their amounts... but in the manner in which our grievances over them were (or were not) addressed by Parliament. To argue that the taxes paid prior to 1775 were more for Americans than they were for people living in London is patently false. Total taxes prior to the outbreak of hostilities at Concord and Lexington were less than 7%... while Londoners were paying as much as 17% and the Irish were paying 32%. At the height of American taxation with the initial implementation of the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts (all later lumped together and labeled the Intolerable Acts), the cost to the American on the street was nearly half of what British subjects were paying across the Atlantic.
What drove the "Revolution" far more than taxes was the declaration by Thomas Hutchinson, Governor of Mass., that he and all his judges and lawyers were to be paid directly by the Crown, and no authority would remain with the colonial legislature. This directive was followed quickly with similar arrangements in New York, New Jersey, Conn., Maryland and Pennsylvania, and ALL colonial governorships after 1775. What taxes we were paying (regardless of amount) and the civil authority we answered to no longer had any recourse or responsibility to the people paying them... meaning the Americans. By 1774, all civil authority in the American colonies had reverted to the Crown and to Parliament, and the Americans had no say.
With the renewed interest in the "Tea Party" through resurgent political awareness happening today, the image of rebels fighting against unjust and overbearing tax burdens is an easy one to fall into, and I'm sure the NPR pundits were falling into that trap. They see the Tea Party movement as embracing the image of the "Boston Tea Party" because Americans felt the tax on tea too great to pay... when in fact, the average American would have had to drink 40 gallons of tea before they paid even one penny in taxes (my source for this is from David McCullough's fantastic work, "1776"). The problem came from the unfair nature of the tax, and the lack of means for Americans to take their case to Parliament, since the colonies had no elected members to the House of Commons, and were only represented by the few Governors of the colonies that also held seats in the House of Lords (not a very balanced form of representation).
So, if the NPR program said the revolution was about taxes, then I say they were 100% wrong. Taxes were a factor, but only in the manner in which those taxes were levied and enforced only in the colonies (since it was expected for us Americans to pay for the war fought on our behalf against the French) and with no means of redress or repeal from the people being taxed. I think that is a very good analogy to what is happening today within the Tea Party movement itself.
If, on the other hand, Ryan is denying that the taxes were LESS for the Americans than they were for the Brits, then I maintain that he is wrong. If taxes didn't rise after 1783, and new and very unpopular taxes weren't enacted by the American government, then I'd ask for a detailed explanation as to what caused the "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1791, if it wasn't new and higher taxes imposed by the government than what the people had known under British rule.
Understanding that historical facts are still facts is vitally important when talking about politics, and understanding those facts allows us to see the fallacy of the liberal argument against the Tea Party movement without having to make the untenable argument that the facts are not accurate in the first place.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Revelations...
I finished "Revelations" last night (late, I know, but we had a lot going on here)... and all I can say is "damn".
They are writing Batiatus to be the next historical Crassus, rich, powerful and ruthless in his drive for political position. Here's my latest prediction: When it comes time for Batiatus to die at the hands of Spartacus, it is going to be some kind of special. He's rogered too many people to get the control and prosperity that he has, and that is a lot of climbing that will have to be balanced with a fall. I'm thinking that his fall will rival anything that anyone has suffered on the show to date.
Lucretia is prego, and Batiatus is accepting the child as his own (even though we know there is a 50/50 chance he isn't the dad... and so does he). He has gained his Senatorial patronage, he runs the most successful ludus in the Republic, he either kills or ends up "owning" anyone standing in his way (Clavius, Clavius' son, Ilytheia, Glaber, Selonius, and Spartacus himself), and he now faces the prospect of legitimate political office in Capua. I'm guessing he'll be nominated aedile or praetor of Capua, with the goal of replacing Clavius as city magistrate once Glaber wins Roman praetorian status (which I believe is the historical fact).
And now we see the culmination of events that leads so many of the gladiators of the ludus to seek freedom and revenge. Crixus is scourged and heartbroken by both Batiatus and Asher, Doctore now knows that Barca didn't win his freedom but was murdered, Aurelia has seen her fortunes fall further and further since her husband was needlessly killed at Batiatus' whim, Neavia is beaten and scarred by Lucretia's jealousy and rage and removed from the man she loves, and the German brothers are to be separated (with the inevitable result being that one of them dies), and Spartacus has the obvious reasons that underpin the entire show.
One episode to go, and I think the "revolt" is fomenting nicely, don't you?
They are writing Batiatus to be the next historical Crassus, rich, powerful and ruthless in his drive for political position. Here's my latest prediction: When it comes time for Batiatus to die at the hands of Spartacus, it is going to be some kind of special. He's rogered too many people to get the control and prosperity that he has, and that is a lot of climbing that will have to be balanced with a fall. I'm thinking that his fall will rival anything that anyone has suffered on the show to date.
Lucretia is prego, and Batiatus is accepting the child as his own (even though we know there is a 50/50 chance he isn't the dad... and so does he). He has gained his Senatorial patronage, he runs the most successful ludus in the Republic, he either kills or ends up "owning" anyone standing in his way (Clavius, Clavius' son, Ilytheia, Glaber, Selonius, and Spartacus himself), and he now faces the prospect of legitimate political office in Capua. I'm guessing he'll be nominated aedile or praetor of Capua, with the goal of replacing Clavius as city magistrate once Glaber wins Roman praetorian status (which I believe is the historical fact).
And now we see the culmination of events that leads so many of the gladiators of the ludus to seek freedom and revenge. Crixus is scourged and heartbroken by both Batiatus and Asher, Doctore now knows that Barca didn't win his freedom but was murdered, Aurelia has seen her fortunes fall further and further since her husband was needlessly killed at Batiatus' whim, Neavia is beaten and scarred by Lucretia's jealousy and rage and removed from the man she loves, and the German brothers are to be separated (with the inevitable result being that one of them dies), and Spartacus has the obvious reasons that underpin the entire show.
One episode to go, and I think the "revolt" is fomenting nicely, don't you?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Palin gets the press, but...
Jindal steals the show, I think.
Watch the video footage of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, and I think you'll see that, while Palin gave a great speech, Jindal had the meat-and-potatoes portion of the event.
I loved how he used the positive aspects of conservative government in LA and how it was WORKING to bring jobs, prosperity and new residents to LA, and how he was going to continue to fight against the implementation of Obama's liberal agenda in his State.
I'm also impressed that he would go so far as to openly state that he WAS NOT running for President in '12. Sure, he can change his mind, but that move gives him a degree to freedom that other potential candidates aren't going to have. While Palin, Pawlenty, Romney, et al, will have to make ever step and every word something special without forcing contradictions or errors... Jindal can speak his mind as he works through the remainder of his term and continues to provide a success story for conservative leaders.
Jindal is in a good place right now, and he needs to make that point every chance he can. With LA standing damn-near alone as a State that can show positive growth in a national economy that continues to fall in nearly every category, he has the ability to dictate the terms of any discussion or debate on policy that comes along... be it on job creation, tax incentives for small business, corporate tax brackets, infrastructure, and even environmentalism and energy production... he has the State that conservatives can point to and say "See? Our ideas work!"
There aren't even many GOP Governors that can say that. Pawlenty has a mediocre record (at best) when it comes to budgets and spending during his years in St Paul, MN, and other new-comers like Crist in FL, Christie in NJ and McDonnell in VA are facing up-hill battles that may or may-not prove the conservative point. To put someone in Jindal's league, you have to look at the more established governors like Barbour in MS and Hoeven in ND who have records rivaling Jindal's with twice his time in office.
I was disappointed in Perry's comments (R-TX). Yes, he was accurate in his assessment of Obama's agenda and its inevitable conclusion, but his is the point of view that will allow the Dems and liberals to point to the GOP as a party of NO, rather than a party of CAN DO. Conservatives want action and direction, and I think moderates and independents will respond to that, too... once they see the policies of "hope and change" fail over and over again between now and 2012. Standing in front of a camera or a crowd and reiterating the obvious over and over again doesn't get us any closer to getting back into a position of power in this government. We must show measurable, tangible results to conservative action, be they contemporary or historical, and we can't keep expecting the voting public to simply "take our word for it".
One of the focus points of the SRLC was whether or not the GOP was a party of "Yes we can" or "No you can't". Jindal made the point that it is wrong for the GOP and conservatives everywhere to ignore the bad ideas and policies coming from Obama and the Left... but that isn't being done, isn't it? I don't think the GOP has lost its ability to voice opposition to the liberal agendas of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid... but I do think we need to rediscover the ability to give alternative plans and ideas in ways that appeal to the average voter. Opposition to an incumbent can get you elected, but it can't keep you in power... a lesson Obama is learning damn fast, I think. Pelosi's majority in the House and Reid's majority in the Senate stemmed from an ability to sell themselves as "alternative" means to a prosperous end, and Obama went a long way towards winning the White House by making the case that he wasn't Bush... but we all understand that their cases have no weight, and won't sustain the momentum even through the mid-terms.
Well, it's refreshing to see the coverage of events such as the SRLC on mainstream media outlets, and if you add this event to the CPAC of recent months and future forums and gatherings where potential candidates and sitting incumbents can voice conservative ideas, we can see a growing awareness of the conservative message across the nation. This is good, and this is directly attributable to the Tea Party movement. Average people forcing the message into the lime-light, so much so that even liberal pundits who cover the message only to discredit it are actually doing us a favor.
Imagine that... Maddow and Olbermann actually helping the conservative cause by allowing their ideas and opinion to be contrasted to what we know to be the mainstream, center-right position of the majority of America. That tickles, doesn't it?
Watch the video footage of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, and I think you'll see that, while Palin gave a great speech, Jindal had the meat-and-potatoes portion of the event.
I loved how he used the positive aspects of conservative government in LA and how it was WORKING to bring jobs, prosperity and new residents to LA, and how he was going to continue to fight against the implementation of Obama's liberal agenda in his State.
I'm also impressed that he would go so far as to openly state that he WAS NOT running for President in '12. Sure, he can change his mind, but that move gives him a degree to freedom that other potential candidates aren't going to have. While Palin, Pawlenty, Romney, et al, will have to make ever step and every word something special without forcing contradictions or errors... Jindal can speak his mind as he works through the remainder of his term and continues to provide a success story for conservative leaders.
Jindal is in a good place right now, and he needs to make that point every chance he can. With LA standing damn-near alone as a State that can show positive growth in a national economy that continues to fall in nearly every category, he has the ability to dictate the terms of any discussion or debate on policy that comes along... be it on job creation, tax incentives for small business, corporate tax brackets, infrastructure, and even environmentalism and energy production... he has the State that conservatives can point to and say "See? Our ideas work!"
There aren't even many GOP Governors that can say that. Pawlenty has a mediocre record (at best) when it comes to budgets and spending during his years in St Paul, MN, and other new-comers like Crist in FL, Christie in NJ and McDonnell in VA are facing up-hill battles that may or may-not prove the conservative point. To put someone in Jindal's league, you have to look at the more established governors like Barbour in MS and Hoeven in ND who have records rivaling Jindal's with twice his time in office.
I was disappointed in Perry's comments (R-TX). Yes, he was accurate in his assessment of Obama's agenda and its inevitable conclusion, but his is the point of view that will allow the Dems and liberals to point to the GOP as a party of NO, rather than a party of CAN DO. Conservatives want action and direction, and I think moderates and independents will respond to that, too... once they see the policies of "hope and change" fail over and over again between now and 2012. Standing in front of a camera or a crowd and reiterating the obvious over and over again doesn't get us any closer to getting back into a position of power in this government. We must show measurable, tangible results to conservative action, be they contemporary or historical, and we can't keep expecting the voting public to simply "take our word for it".
One of the focus points of the SRLC was whether or not the GOP was a party of "Yes we can" or "No you can't". Jindal made the point that it is wrong for the GOP and conservatives everywhere to ignore the bad ideas and policies coming from Obama and the Left... but that isn't being done, isn't it? I don't think the GOP has lost its ability to voice opposition to the liberal agendas of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid... but I do think we need to rediscover the ability to give alternative plans and ideas in ways that appeal to the average voter. Opposition to an incumbent can get you elected, but it can't keep you in power... a lesson Obama is learning damn fast, I think. Pelosi's majority in the House and Reid's majority in the Senate stemmed from an ability to sell themselves as "alternative" means to a prosperous end, and Obama went a long way towards winning the White House by making the case that he wasn't Bush... but we all understand that their cases have no weight, and won't sustain the momentum even through the mid-terms.
Well, it's refreshing to see the coverage of events such as the SRLC on mainstream media outlets, and if you add this event to the CPAC of recent months and future forums and gatherings where potential candidates and sitting incumbents can voice conservative ideas, we can see a growing awareness of the conservative message across the nation. This is good, and this is directly attributable to the Tea Party movement. Average people forcing the message into the lime-light, so much so that even liberal pundits who cover the message only to discredit it are actually doing us a favor.
Imagine that... Maddow and Olbermann actually helping the conservative cause by allowing their ideas and opinion to be contrasted to what we know to be the mainstream, center-right position of the majority of America. That tickles, doesn't it?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Insulin resistance...
Jambo and I are not what anyone would mistake as "health-nuts"... by any stretch of the imagination. Baddboy has nearly 20 years in the military, and that kind of service can't come without a large degree of healthy exercise thrown into the lifestyle... and Ryan is more than narcissistic to qualify as "healthy", at least physically if not mentally.
(Just kidding, Ryan... simmer down.)
My wife has been diagnosed with a condition called insulin resistance, which means that her blood sugar levels are not regulated enough by the levels of insulin provided by her body naturally. Against the advice of every doctor we have seen, we are going to implement a very low-carb (bordering on no-carb) diet for a week, to see if limiting or eliminating processed sugar and carbs from her diet will do something to curb the mood swings, lack of energy, problems sleeping, and her increasing concerns about her weight.
What we have both found truly fascinating was the correlation between insulin resistance and ADHD, though. Our youngest son has been diagnosed with ADHD for more than two years, and we are only now beginning to come to grips with what this means to our lifestyle. While we cannot deny the benefits of medication in our treatment of Jake's condition, most of what we see as most successful in how we cope with the condition is from behavioral modification methods more than from the meds. Much of what we have read about both ADHD and insulin resistance says that the two are related, and I can't deny that Jacob is particularly susceptible to sugar over-loads, but I'm not at all sure that it is the end-all answer to Jake's condition. I doubt that it will hurt, though, so I'm seeing this effort as win-win all the way around.
There is no question in my mind that limiting or eliminating sugars and simple carbs from my diet will only help me, so I'm on-board with the plan to help the wife 100%. If you are wondering why this is being posted here, it is mainly to let all of you know that YOU guys are now the sounding boards for my efforts in this realm, and should there be difficulties, problems or issues with the effort, you will be the ones I turn to if I need to complain, bitch or whine.
Be ready.
Side note: Liz was a bit concerned when I explained why wine is OFF the menu list at the Foster-Lieteau house as long as we are combating carbs. Besides the simple, undeniable fact that alcohol is processed by the body into simple sugars as a matter of natural actions, wine contains added sugars and a lower alcohol content (by volume) anyway, which makes it a "double-whamy" all the way around. I tried to mitigate this bad news by explaining that vodka and whiskey were acceptable alternatives, given the higher alcohol content and zero added sugars. I drink my whiskey neat, so mixers are not an issue... but Liz doesn't drink anything neat (accept coffee), so I suggested the famous stand-by... the vodka-tonic. This led to an investigation as to the carb content of tonic water, and I was surprised to learn that most commercially available tonic waters do have a substantial amount of added sugar to offset the quinine flavoring of the tonic. The short version is we'll have to find "diet" or natural tonic water.
The long version is that Liz then wanted to know what the quinine was for. I explained that the British discovered that adding quinine infusions to charged water helped combat rampant malaria and typhus outbreaks in the tropical regions of the Empire, so that the daily ration for army units in India and the Far East and Africa contained both the required "tonic water" and the half-pint of gin spirits, which led directly to the quintessential British cocktail: the gin and tonic.
This is also reflected in the Royal Navy tradition of needing to fight off rampant scurvy and by doing this most effectively with the addition of lime-water (diluted lime juice) to the daily rum ration (half a pint of neat rum spirit to one pint of lime water), which we see reflected in such modern New World drinks as the mojito, daiquiri and bumboo (nothing more than grog spiced with nutmeg).
Another ringing example of military technology benefiting society as a whole, isn't it?
(Just kidding, Ryan... simmer down.)
My wife has been diagnosed with a condition called insulin resistance, which means that her blood sugar levels are not regulated enough by the levels of insulin provided by her body naturally. Against the advice of every doctor we have seen, we are going to implement a very low-carb (bordering on no-carb) diet for a week, to see if limiting or eliminating processed sugar and carbs from her diet will do something to curb the mood swings, lack of energy, problems sleeping, and her increasing concerns about her weight.
What we have both found truly fascinating was the correlation between insulin resistance and ADHD, though. Our youngest son has been diagnosed with ADHD for more than two years, and we are only now beginning to come to grips with what this means to our lifestyle. While we cannot deny the benefits of medication in our treatment of Jake's condition, most of what we see as most successful in how we cope with the condition is from behavioral modification methods more than from the meds. Much of what we have read about both ADHD and insulin resistance says that the two are related, and I can't deny that Jacob is particularly susceptible to sugar over-loads, but I'm not at all sure that it is the end-all answer to Jake's condition. I doubt that it will hurt, though, so I'm seeing this effort as win-win all the way around.
There is no question in my mind that limiting or eliminating sugars and simple carbs from my diet will only help me, so I'm on-board with the plan to help the wife 100%. If you are wondering why this is being posted here, it is mainly to let all of you know that YOU guys are now the sounding boards for my efforts in this realm, and should there be difficulties, problems or issues with the effort, you will be the ones I turn to if I need to complain, bitch or whine.
Be ready.
Side note: Liz was a bit concerned when I explained why wine is OFF the menu list at the Foster-Lieteau house as long as we are combating carbs. Besides the simple, undeniable fact that alcohol is processed by the body into simple sugars as a matter of natural actions, wine contains added sugars and a lower alcohol content (by volume) anyway, which makes it a "double-whamy" all the way around. I tried to mitigate this bad news by explaining that vodka and whiskey were acceptable alternatives, given the higher alcohol content and zero added sugars. I drink my whiskey neat, so mixers are not an issue... but Liz doesn't drink anything neat (accept coffee), so I suggested the famous stand-by... the vodka-tonic. This led to an investigation as to the carb content of tonic water, and I was surprised to learn that most commercially available tonic waters do have a substantial amount of added sugar to offset the quinine flavoring of the tonic. The short version is we'll have to find "diet" or natural tonic water.
The long version is that Liz then wanted to know what the quinine was for. I explained that the British discovered that adding quinine infusions to charged water helped combat rampant malaria and typhus outbreaks in the tropical regions of the Empire, so that the daily ration for army units in India and the Far East and Africa contained both the required "tonic water" and the half-pint of gin spirits, which led directly to the quintessential British cocktail: the gin and tonic.
This is also reflected in the Royal Navy tradition of needing to fight off rampant scurvy and by doing this most effectively with the addition of lime-water (diluted lime juice) to the daily rum ration (half a pint of neat rum spirit to one pint of lime water), which we see reflected in such modern New World drinks as the mojito, daiquiri and bumboo (nothing more than grog spiced with nutmeg).
Another ringing example of military technology benefiting society as a whole, isn't it?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The "health care" backlash...
I'm delighted to see such sources as the Washington Post and the New York Times running articles about the Democrat's hesitant and careful post-vote behavior on the Obama-care question. To date, NOT ONE Democrat has faced a crowd of more than 65 people to field questions about the legislation or the manner in which it was passed.
There are plenty of questions waiting to be answered about the content of the legislation, and the manner in which it was passed into law... but the vast majority of sitting Democrats are avoiding the topic in hopes that it will blow over and some other topic will take its place in the eyes of the voting public. States like New York, Arizona, Oregon, Georgia, Florida... even DNC-dominated California... are facing growing concerns and questions about the health care reform and the seeming disregard that the majority party had for public opinion during its passing. With fully one-third of the Senate up for re-election, and all of the House... the DNC has got to be sweating bullets right about now. The Senate majority is at greater risk, but control of the House isn't guaranteed either, given the current down-trend in approval for Democratic Representatives.
It goes beyond just the mid-terms, too. For example, Obama nominated for an open bench on the Appeals Court one Goodwin Liu, a law professor from UC Berkeley. Seems the Dems want to rush his nomination through the Senate... but according to both the GOP leaders of the Senate AND the LA Times, Liu failed to complete his nomination disclosure forms completely, and had to resubmit more than 113 omitted items for review. GOP members wrote to Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that such a failure to complete the questionaires constituted a disqualification of nomination, which is supported by no fewer than two Democratic committee memebers. To beat a possible filibuster by Republicans, the Dems would need one Republican to support the nomination... but it seems they don't even have all the Dems in a line.
With the national focus on the health care legislation bringing the fractious and divisive nature of the current DNC leadership into the limelight for all to see, these kinds of mistakes by the Democratic leadership in Congress can only speed up the inevitable liberal self-destruction that I think is coming. Pelosi and Reid have taken unquestionable Democratic majority control of all of Congress, and squandered it to the point of uselessness. No Congress in 117 years has had a lower success rate or public opinion rating, and that kind of track record can't be swept under the rug for very long.
I really do think that the next two years are going to bring us the best example of a majority party's "self destruction" in nearly 50 years. I can't wait to watch.
There are plenty of questions waiting to be answered about the content of the legislation, and the manner in which it was passed into law... but the vast majority of sitting Democrats are avoiding the topic in hopes that it will blow over and some other topic will take its place in the eyes of the voting public. States like New York, Arizona, Oregon, Georgia, Florida... even DNC-dominated California... are facing growing concerns and questions about the health care reform and the seeming disregard that the majority party had for public opinion during its passing. With fully one-third of the Senate up for re-election, and all of the House... the DNC has got to be sweating bullets right about now. The Senate majority is at greater risk, but control of the House isn't guaranteed either, given the current down-trend in approval for Democratic Representatives.
It goes beyond just the mid-terms, too. For example, Obama nominated for an open bench on the Appeals Court one Goodwin Liu, a law professor from UC Berkeley. Seems the Dems want to rush his nomination through the Senate... but according to both the GOP leaders of the Senate AND the LA Times, Liu failed to complete his nomination disclosure forms completely, and had to resubmit more than 113 omitted items for review. GOP members wrote to Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that such a failure to complete the questionaires constituted a disqualification of nomination, which is supported by no fewer than two Democratic committee memebers. To beat a possible filibuster by Republicans, the Dems would need one Republican to support the nomination... but it seems they don't even have all the Dems in a line.
With the national focus on the health care legislation bringing the fractious and divisive nature of the current DNC leadership into the limelight for all to see, these kinds of mistakes by the Democratic leadership in Congress can only speed up the inevitable liberal self-destruction that I think is coming. Pelosi and Reid have taken unquestionable Democratic majority control of all of Congress, and squandered it to the point of uselessness. No Congress in 117 years has had a lower success rate or public opinion rating, and that kind of track record can't be swept under the rug for very long.
I really do think that the next two years are going to bring us the best example of a majority party's "self destruction" in nearly 50 years. I can't wait to watch.
I still like the Tea Party movement...
I like that there is a renewed interest in keeping the focus of the Tea Party movement on the "movement" part and not on the "Party" portion of the label. Seems that in one afternoon, they raised more than $80,000 to target the re-election campaign of Rep. Stupak (D-MI), who flipped his no vote to a yay and helped pass the reform legislation of Pelosi-Reid.
They are keeping the focus on facts and details, rather than on changing the GOP or countering with an alternative conservative party that would ultimately just divide the vote hopelessly. They are making the effort a means by which traditional conservative values towards government and taxes are made more apparent by moving their "tour" through regions where key seats are in contention. $400k was raised and spent on the MA campaign that won Brown the seat held by Kennedy, and they have already raised $500k for advertising to help defeat Reid in NV. The MI total is expected to exceed $250k by the end of the day today for the war-chest against Stupak... and that in one of the most economically depressed States in the Union.
They have done an excellent job of rebutting the claims that racial slurs were thrown at black Congressional members as they walked past Tea Party protesters just a few weeks ago, using the very vocal and enthusiastic support of the members of the Tea Party movement who are, themselves, black. Ward Connerly even wrote a piece for the NRO that challenged Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. to release his phone video footage of the event to see if any of the slurs and slanders he alleged he heard were recorded on the phone... something the author doubts very much.
Building awareness, raising money, keeping key issues on the table... that is a role that the Tea Party can fill admirably, without dividing the country. It is an almost unprecedented opportunity to show that America really is "center-right" in its orientation, and that what has served this country best over the last 230 years is the individualism inherent in the Constitutional freedoms that we can all now enjoy fully and freely.
They are keeping the focus on facts and details, rather than on changing the GOP or countering with an alternative conservative party that would ultimately just divide the vote hopelessly. They are making the effort a means by which traditional conservative values towards government and taxes are made more apparent by moving their "tour" through regions where key seats are in contention. $400k was raised and spent on the MA campaign that won Brown the seat held by Kennedy, and they have already raised $500k for advertising to help defeat Reid in NV. The MI total is expected to exceed $250k by the end of the day today for the war-chest against Stupak... and that in one of the most economically depressed States in the Union.
They have done an excellent job of rebutting the claims that racial slurs were thrown at black Congressional members as they walked past Tea Party protesters just a few weeks ago, using the very vocal and enthusiastic support of the members of the Tea Party movement who are, themselves, black. Ward Connerly even wrote a piece for the NRO that challenged Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. to release his phone video footage of the event to see if any of the slurs and slanders he alleged he heard were recorded on the phone... something the author doubts very much.
Building awareness, raising money, keeping key issues on the table... that is a role that the Tea Party can fill admirably, without dividing the country. It is an almost unprecedented opportunity to show that America really is "center-right" in its orientation, and that what has served this country best over the last 230 years is the individualism inherent in the Constitutional freedoms that we can all now enjoy fully and freely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
