We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, August 18. 2010
— Give Big Labor national power
— Deplore the difference between the rich and poor
— Push for national health care
— Push for national workman's comp insurance
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Roosevelt dealt with important issues, however his answers were as equally flawed.
He was never among the lowly. He was a Harvard elitist who expected he knew better than everyone else. And in many ways he was smarter and more honorable. He had good aims, but his ends didn't justify his means.
He is the one who initiated this "progress" toward statism, and entitlement. He is the one who started to destroy the checks and balances of our 3-branch gov't. He is the one who encouraged the idiocy of women's suffrage.
Most of our current ills can be traced to women voting. Which isn't to say that women shouldn't vote.
Perhaps "family voting" would help. One vote per family, not one vote per person. If you're single and want to vote, get married (or a civil union). People who refuse to be responsible for at least one other person are not responsible enough to vote and share in civic responsibility.
Singles bring in more taxes per capita than married people, therefore should have more say in how tax money is spent, thus their votes should each count the same as the combined votes of a married couple.
That a fine fellow like Dr. Mercury could be an apologist for TR (as president) only shows how insidious progressive propaganda can be.
Not one of TR's "credits" can stand the light of day.
But we don't have to argue details: TR was a statist. His appealing character - wonderful in private life - was poison as a blustering ruler.
I object to your putting the full weight of opposition to the civil rights for african-americans, on the South.
JFK, famous (snicker)for voting in 1957 against civil rights and later, when the recordings of phone conversations with LBJ were released, we heard his genuine contempt for the black population (which his brother and political party have used/abused to such an extreme extent).
The North, the liberals were a large part of the long fight for civil rights....and not in a good way.
We're speaking of different times. According to the video, his little version of a 'Civil Rights Act' was squashed by Southern Democrats.
Me, I refer to the great conflict as 'The War of Northern Aggression', if that means anything to you.
Well, I listed his shockingly progressive ideals and mocked him as a "Republican", didn't I? Does that sound "apologist" to you? Seriously?
And I said that the video was equal-handed in pointing out his deficiencies as well as his strengths, so how is that construed as "progressive propaganda"?
"Not one of TR's "credits" can stand the light of day."
He faked the Panama Canal??? Sending our navy around the world? Settling the Russo-Japanese War? Ending child labor and mandatory 12-hour work days? It was all just a massive PR stunt??
Man, that progressive propaganda machine you were talking about is awesome! They've got everyone fooled!
Well, everyone but you and DrTorch, of course.
Giving women the right to vote was the great blunder.
Let them hold office, but you don't want them voting.
Too big a bloc of women votes like women.
Of course you do know that Colombia was uncooperative over having a canal dug through their country so TR backed the revolution in Panama. As a result we received the Canal Zone concession as a reward for our efforts.
He sent the Great White Fleet around the world. That is an accomplishment?
How did mediating the Russo-Japanese War benefit the USA?
TR also believed the USA should have colonies like the European Powers.
Dr Torch, T Kelly, and Happy Acres are all correct in their assessments.
"As a result we received the Canal Zone concession as a reward for our efforts."
Are you suggesting some tinpot dictator should stand in the way of world progress? Every nation in the friggin' world uses that thing. It was absolutely vital to world development. Sorry, tinpot dictator, you stand in the way of the maw of progress, you lose.
"He sent the Great White Fleet around the world. That is an accomplishment?"
First nation that had ever done so. Do we have a different definition of the word "accomplishment"?
"How did mediating the Russo-Japanese War benefit the USA?"
It made us a 'player' on the international stage. It was the first time we'd intermediated in someone else's war.
"TR also believed the USA should have colonies like the European Powers."
You're right "colonies" is a terrible word. It's just so provincial.
Far better to call them "territories".
Here is a Teddy quote.
"Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.... Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.... Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population... The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity..."
Not really my cup of tea, but you can admire the man if you like.
Eugenics? You haul out Eugenics?? And with no citation? Man, that's seriously lame. Everybody in the friggin' galaxy believed in Eugenics back in those days.
My goodness, rhhardin, what a silly thing to say! Now, if you had said something like, 'giving some women the right to vote was a great blunder,' we might have some grounds for agreement, but that's equally true as far as giving some men the right to vote. People are going to form groups of idiots, no matter what you do. They always have. But if all citizens have the right to vote, hopefully enough of the responsible grown-ups will balance out the idiots and we'll get some kind of useful consensus from which our country can proceed.
What's this grudge you seem to have against all women, my friend? Or are you just trying to pull our chain?
You can't let any women vote because too big a fraction (40%) vote like women.
Even sane women can see they benefit from that exclusion. They vote like men anyway. So their vote doesn't add anything to men's vote; it just makes the numbers bigger without changing the result.
The benefit is that the crazy 40% is not longer participating.
Side benefit: no campaign ads aimed at women.
I love pre-Presidency TR! I have some real mixed feelings about his administration but it's impossible to despise the man.
When I was a kid, TR was one of my favorite Presidents. How could you not admire the guy. A sickly childhood overcome with grit and determination, almost sheer force of will. A renaissance man: naturalist, cowboy, police commissioner, war hero and politician busting trusts and implementing civil service. Also the author of what would become a standard text on the US Navy in the War of 1812. Clearly a man of many accomplishments.
Later, as a college student, I began to see his flaws. My summary: he was certainly a significant American figure. (He is on Mount Rushmore after all!) He was in many ways a politician of his times. You can't read about the influence and impact of large combines like insurance and railroads that dominated politics in New York state without having at least some grudging appreciation for his trust busting instincts. The state legislature was more like a toll booth, where business interests inserted cash to gain monopolies on electricity, trolley cars and insurance. TR was fortunate in his birth. He was wealthy enough that he was not inclined to corruption simply because he did not need his money. And how can you not appreciate the irony of history. The state Republicans plotted to get TR out of Albany by foisting him on McKinley, because everyone knows the vice presidency is an office of no consequence.
I think it's safe to say that the early political TR was more of a reformer, than a progressive. It was only later, influenced in part by Bismark (he had a great deal of admiration for the Germans) that he began adopting more progressive policies.
I still like him as a person, but think less of him as a president.
I once had a really high opinion of TR as well.
Then I started reading more deeply about him and his beliefs.
His thoughts on eugenics and selective breeding were enough to make me recoil from any positive thoughts of him.
But then, at the time, the country really needed such progressive ideals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How is this determined in each generation - and by whom?
I say "Bully" for Teddie and all his children.
I think all his sons served in WW1. Quentin, the fly-er never came home.