Wednesday morning links

>The Pony Express

hard to believe it was mostly teenage boys who rode that, and nowadays parents get arrested if a 10 yr is alone a mile from their house.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard/read that each rider was also given a rifle, not so much for Indians, but in case the horse spooked and rider dragged by a stirrup, they could shoot their horse. (that's why cowboy boots are made the way they are so that you turn over to your stomach and extricate yourself)

My daughter told me when she was 10 she wanted to be a pony express rider. Now her sights have moved on to becoming a truck driver.

#1 fjord on 2015-04-15 06:56 (Reply)

The world is more dangerous now than it was back in the good old days....

#1.1 JK Brown on 2015-04-15 08:19 (Reply)

My understanding is that the Pony Express riders rode unarmed ... to save weight. Lighter was faster.

#1.2 feeblemind on 2015-04-15 10:11 (Reply)

I recall a Thomas Hart Benton painting of a PE rider firing a pistol at something behind him (out of picture). I think a pistol is likely, but a rifle is too much.

#1.2.1 Sam L. on 2015-04-15 14:00 (Reply)

I just copied this excerpt from Daniel Hannan's 'Inventing Freedom' on King John. I entertain the idea that Obama may be equally a catalyst.

QUOTE:

Yet again, we see the civic rather than ethnic nature of Anglosphere values, which spread among any population given the right circumstances.

The conveniently obnoxious King John provided such circumstances. It is hard to think of a worse English monarch. The only contender who comes close is James II, who also united the country against him through that peculiar combination of stubbornness, petulance, and caprice that is the mark of a weak man. In both cases, the kings were providentially bad: had they been just a little bit more trustworthy, just a little less obstreperous, the happy constitutional developments that followed from their reigns might not have occurred.

Hannan does observe that no other king of England or Britain has taken/been given the name John such is the association.

#2 JK Brown on 2015-04-15 08:23 (Reply)

Dennis Pager: {Hillary Clinton} has accomplished nothing, but she’s a woman (who’s a liberal), and that’s all that matters to the Left.

A List Of Hillary Clinton’s Accomplishments
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/

#3 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 10:14 (Reply)

OK, we'll link that.

She has done more than BO ever did

#3.1 bd on 2015-04-15 10:21 (Reply)

Her 'accomplishments' are so thin as to be damn near invisible.

The list was all 'over saw this' or was 'instrumental in that'. Subjective terms which suggest the events would have taken place anyway. Furthermore, all of the 'achievements' cited involved, the expansion of government and the redistribution of wealth.

And she is given credit for helping found the bribe repository known as the Clinton Foundation which would have never happened without her husband.

I did not see her one true accomplishment mentioned. She has cashed in on her position as former first lady like no other FLOTUS in history.

#3.1.1 feeblemind on 2015-04-15 10:36 (Reply)

feeblemind: Her 'accomplishments' are so thin as to be damn near invisible.

Hillary Clinton's support was crucial for the Children's Health Insurance Program, among many other accomplishments.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 11:02 (Reply)

Here are some more accomplishments of hers:

She lied that she was under sniper fire in Bosnia (and some people are scandalized by Brian William's lies!).

She 'reset' relations with the Soviet Union (I mean Russia). Gee, that's working out real well!

She supported the 'Arab Spring' thinking they were some sort of democracy movement rather than an attempted take over by radical Muslims.

She failed to adequately fortify the consulate in Benghazi (after just about everybody else in the world had decided that it was too dangerous to be there and left) leading to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others.

When 'consoling' the parents of the slain in Benghazi, she lied that it was all caused by a youtube video.

In order to control the information about her actions/inaction during her tenure as Secretary of State, she and her staff conducted all of their email correspondence through an unsecured email server that she had complete control of. When asked by letter about any private email accounts by Daryl Issa during his investigation, there was no reply. Long after she left the State Department to 'comply' with records regulations, she turned over paper copies of some of her email correspondence (meaning that it couldn't easily be searched and any routing information for the email was lost). Later we find that she supposedly wiped her server clean destroying any information she didn't want released as well as any evidence any intrusion such as who, how, and what information was compromised.

I also hear she throws a mean lamp!

#3.2 mudbug on 2015-04-15 10:56 (Reply)

She was also fired from the only "real" job she had at the Watergate committee for unethical behavior and demeaned women in general with her "Tammy Wynette" reference.

Besides throwing lamps, she swears like a…(I really don't want to disparage whomever comes to mind).

#3.2.1 jma on 2015-04-15 14:35 (Reply)

Only two Doolittle Raiders left:

On April 18, 2015, the 73rd anniversary of the raid, the medal will be presented at a ceremony to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio by one of the two surviving Raiders, Lt. Col. Dick Cole. The other surviving Raider, Staff Sgt. David J. Thatcher is also planning to attend. More information on that ceremony can be found here.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/breaking-after-73-years-doolittle-raiders-will-be-given-congressional-gold-medal-wednesday/

#4 feeblemind on 2015-04-15 10:21 (Reply)

Daniel Hannan: Nelson Mandela was wrong about poverty

Mandela was speaking in the aftermath of apartheid, wherein legal means were used to prevent people from achieving their full potential as human beings.

As for the general point, capitalism obviously can cause poverty. A simple example is a rugmaker, a skilled crafter, well-respected and comfortably wealthy. A foreign industrial power comes in with manufactured rugs, using military force to globalize and undercut the market. The rugmaker is now impoverished. Their children leave for the cities to work in textile factories, working long hours in unsafe conditions.

You might argue that the overall trend is positive, but you can't deny the fact that there are people left behind in the wake of uneven industrial development.

#5 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 10:28 (Reply)

Capitalism does not include military force. Other than that, your example is a poor one. There are many people who prefer a quality handmade rug to a manufactured one, but even if there weren't and the market for quality handmade rugs evaporated, then capitalism provides incentives for the rugmaker to do something else so that the society's needs or desires could better be met. He could be forced, or subsidized to continue producing a product for which there was no market but I'm not sure how that helps anybody.

#5.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 11:31 (Reply)

mudbug: if the market for quality handmade rugs evaporated, then capitalism provides incentives for the rugmaker to do something else so that the society's needs or desires could better be met.

It takes time, and there is dislocation often lasting generations.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 11:39 (Reply)

Huh? You mean it takes generations to go from being a rugmaker to something else?!

#5.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 12:13 (Reply)

mudbug: Capitalism does not include military force.

Capitalist nations, such as Britain, thought that their colonial enterprises were "to develop it for the benefit of the world."

#5.1.2 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 11:46 (Reply)

So? The Brits left Hong Kong alone and it became the most capitalistic place on earth. There was not military force involved in the decision, nor did Hong Kong project any military force on anyone.

#5.1.2.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 12:01 (Reply)

mugbug: There was not military force involved in the decision, nor did Hong Kong project any military force on anyone.

Huh? Hong Kong was ceded in the aftermath of the First Opium War when China refused to allow the importation of opium.

#5.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 12:18 (Reply)

So what! There was no military force involved in the decision to leave Hong Kong alone - thus making it the most capitalistic place on earth, nor did Hong Kong project any military force on anyone while that condition continued.

Your logic seems to be that because England was 'capitalistic' and engaged in the use of military force that the latter was the result or requirement of the former. I've given you an example when it was not.

How does this relate to the rugmaker?

#5.1.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 12:55 (Reply)

mudbug: So what! There was no military force involved in the decision to leave Hong Kong alone

Because it wasn't left alone. It was taken by the British under military threat, the same threat used to open the Chinese markets to opium.

mudbug: nor did Hong Kong project any military force on anyone while that condition continued.

Huh? Hong Kong was a center of British power over China.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 13:02 (Reply)

For decades prior to England turning Hong Kong back over to China, England followed a policy of laissez faire with regards to Hong Kong's economy. During that time, it was the most capitalistic economy in the world (to repeat myself). Whatever military actions that resulted in Hong Kong being England's protectorate is irrelevant (other than the fact that England was the protectorate to give Hong Kong its freedom) to Hong Kong's economy. England controlled Hong Kong for ninety nine years but it didn't always follow the laissez faire policies that it did later. Implementing those policies was not the result of England using military force on the residents of Hong Kong.

Again I ask, what does this have to do with rugmakers?

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 13:44 (Reply)

mudbug: During that time, it was the most capitalistic economy in the world (to repeat myself). Whatever military actions that resulted in Hong Kong being England's protectorate is irrelevant (other than the fact that England was the protectorate to give Hong Kong its freedom) to Hong Kong's economy.

If by capitalism, you mean they forced China to import opium, that's right.

As for Hong Kong itself, they enjoyed a renaissance of sorts starting in the 1970s, with compulsory public education, reform of public institutions, public housing to end squatting slums, social welfare protection, preservation of parklands, and near universal healthcare.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 15:42 (Reply)

In what way does all this have to do with your rugmaking example? (I ask again)

In what way does whatever England did vis a vis opium and China have to do with the economic success of capitalism in Hong Kong?

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 16:16 (Reply)

mudbug: In what way does all this have to do with your rugmaking example?

Hong Kong was your particular example. Perhaps you could explain why you introduced it.

mudbug: In what way does whatever England did vis a vis opium and China have to do with the economic success of capitalism in Hong Kong?

Hong Kong was built on the opium trade.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 16:27 (Reply)

See comments starting at #5.1.2 (sigh)

The modern economy of Hong Kong that I referenced was not built on the opium trade. Guess again.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-04-15 17:56 (Reply)

mudbug: The modern economy of Hong Kong that I referenced was not built on the opium trade.

Your claim was that the British left Hong Kong alone.

Let's see. The colony was taken by force by the British, who then forced the Chinese to buy opium that the British produced with their monopoly on opium production in India. They used this cash to subsidize their colony, building it into an offshore banking and trading empire. In modern times, Hong Kong implemented social reforms, including a social safety net and universal healthcare, all the while maintaining a robust market economy. It's a mixed system.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-04-15 18:17 (Reply)

Hannan is insane and that article is nearly incoherent.

Where or what was the "capital" 100,000 years ago? It can't be the exchange of goods and services, unless capitalism is so broadly defined that any economic activity involving exchange becomes "capitalism".

That capitalism is the best way to organize an economy is undeniable, especially by the plethora of failed socialist and communist states. Defense of capitalism doesn't need this nonsense.

#5.2 The Poetry of Violence on 2015-04-15 12:14 (Reply)

Re: Nuclear tensions rising in South Asia

I think this problem is overstated. Neither Pakistan nor India (nor China) have the ability to make an effective nuclear first strike (aka a counterforce attack) on any adversary, much less a combination of two. Effective = preventing nuclear retaliation.

Whether anyone admits this, the nuclear forces are targeted at cities (countervalue), with maybe 75 million people in the largest cities of Pakistan and India (Delhi, Karachi, Mumbai, Calcutta) at risk. Each side effectively holds the other hostage, their own little Cold War, aka minimum nuclear deterrent.

#6 The Poetry of Violence on 2015-04-15 12:46 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, April 15. 2015

Wednesday morning links