Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 25. 2015

NYC: Hooray for the High Bridge - A civic restoration project that deserves to be celebrated

Alibaba’s Jack Ma Buys $23 Million Property in New York’s Adirondacks - The Chinese billionaire has conservation plans for the 28,100-acre property.

How men and women differ on sex and relationships

America’s center on gun control might shock New York

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' - The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

JP Morgan Chase Employees Effectively Required to Endorse Sodomy

When a Nobel Prize winner can be hounded from his university chair by the harridans of the Internet...

JP
Morgan Chase Employees Effectively Required to Endorse Sodomy - See
more at: http://moonbattery.com/?p=59830#sthash.9MLwJCsf.dpuf

Battle Flags and Bad Faith: The Left Exploits Another Crisis

As we saw with Obama’s birth certificate, the only people who care about this flag are liberals and lunatics, the distinction between the two is impossible without professional training.

Now it’s serious: No more “Dukes of Hazzard” toys with the Confederate flag on the General Lee

"This is a new level of ‘P.C.’ idiocy. I don’t know about you, but I am tired of being insulted by morons."

Leftists Want Military Bases Named After Confederate Generals Renamed

The Cynical Political Double-Cross Of Young Americans

Hillary Clinton Takes Private Jet to Give Speech on Social Inequality

Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A force adrift - HOW THE NATION IS FAILING TODAY'S TROOPS AND VETERANS

Former Obama aides say U.S. needs tougher Iran nuclear deal

Report: In 9 Years' Existence, UNHRC Condemned Israel More Times Than Rest of World Combined

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:01 | Comments (63) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

JP Morgan Chase Employees Effectively Required to Endorse Sodomy

Moral transformations are like that: first they rage at old believers, then shame them, then re-educate them, then punish them, then kill them.

The variable is fear: the less fear they have of retaliation, the more violent their response to disagreement and dissent.

Note what state we are at now.

Same as it ever was.

#1 ErisGuy on 2015-06-25 07:41 (Reply)

JP Morgan Chase Employees Effectively Required to Endorse Sodomy Miscegenation.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2015-06-25 09:34 (Reply)

I don't get your point. Are you in any way supporting JP Morgan's suggestion to "Include LGBT issues in your life". Would you feel the same way if they suggested that anti-socialist, pro-beastiality, pro-Christian, pro-atheist, or any other particular viewpoint in your life? This goes beyond regulating water cooler talk. JP Morgan is apparently trying to influence your private opinions and life choices.

#1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 10:02 (Reply)

"JP Morgan Chase Employees Effectively Required to Endorse Sodomy"

We've gone from "hide the decline" to "Hide your behind"

#1.2 JK Brown on 2015-06-25 10:38 (Reply)

Re Nobel Prize winner and calls for anything related to the Confederacy to be banned.

Here's what I don't understand, why can't all these people on social media calling for bans and scalps based on perceived insults just be told to STFU and to get a life?

I don't understand the cowering and kowtowing. All these people can do is shoot off their mouths so why are they being taken seriously?

It is incredibly frustrating to me.

#2 feeblemind on 2015-06-25 09:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Christopher Booker: Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'... if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change.

INQUA's official position on climate change (emphasis added):

QUOTE:

Climate change is real. There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere

Mörner is also apparently an advocate for dowsing.

#3 Zachriel on 2015-06-25 09:26 (Reply)

The climate is changing... Really!!!?

Then there's this about the coming little Ice Age (http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity). One wonders what effect a little Ice Age would have on sea levels...

#3.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 11:34 (Reply)

At the risk of being taken for some wingnut, my personal experience is that dowsing sometimes actually works.

#3.2 Claritas on 2015-06-25 18:19 (Reply)

So does guessing, by that standard.

#3.2.1 aporitic on 2015-06-26 10:53 (Reply)

re As we saw with Obama’s birth certificate, the only people who care about this flag are liberals and lunatics, the distinction between the two is impossible without professional training.

He also says the CSA flag is, "stupid".

The Z man's stock has just depreciated considerably in my view. Either he is ignorant of history, doesn't understand The South, or is trying to inoculate himself from an attack by The Hive.

#4 feeblemind on 2015-06-25 09:30 (Reply)

feeblemind: re As we saw with Obama’s birth certificate, the only people who care about this flag are liberals and lunatics, the distinction between the two is impossible without professional training.

Thought birtherism was primarily something on the political right, as exemplified by Fox News going on about it for years, only ending the tirade on May 2, 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnkQ9TABCFM&t=0m31s

#4.1 Zachriel on 2015-06-25 09:42 (Reply)

Oops. The "As we saw with Obama’s birth certificate..." quote should be attributed to thezman.

#4.2 Zachriel on 2015-06-25 09:49 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Jim Hoft: Leftists Want Military Bases Named After Confederate Generals Renamed

And the highest rated comment ("best") is a call for secession!

#5 Zachriel on 2015-06-25 09:46 (Reply)

Confederate Officers ...

what do we do make of Joseph Wheeler, 2d Lt, USA; Lt. Gen., CSA; Brig. Gen., USA.?

#6 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 10:32 (Reply)

Re: insulted by morons

The whole flap by the left in the wake of the Charleston killings is demonstrably led by morons who know nothing of history.

- We are to abhor Robert E. Lee (who was not pro-slavery and whose wife and daughter set up an illegal school for slaves) and Stonewall Jackson (who also was not pro-slavery and also taught slaves illegally).

- We are also supposed to be disgusted by the Constitution's counting slaves as 3/5 of a person (which was a compromise designed to limit representation of slaves states in Congress).

- We are supposed to hate Jefferson because he had slaves (even though he tried to outlaw slavery when he was the Governor of Virginia and couldn't free them because the laws required posting a bond for freed slaves and he was broke).

Are we supposed to love Grant who was instrumental in defeating the Confederacy (even though he owned slaves)?

And are we supposed to believe the DNC's own website (http://www.democrats.org/about/our-history) that says for over two hundred years Democrats led the fight for civil rights (even though they were the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, anti-women's suffrage, and until the '60 filibustered Republican civil rights laws).

#7 mudbug on 2015-06-25 10:43 (Reply)

I hereby call for President Obama to sell off the National Military Parks that commemorate the battles of the Civil War. These parks cannot help but cause thoughts about the Confederacy.

Think of the children who must drive through Gettysburg, or Chickamauga? Sure most of the monuments are to Yankee regiments but how can anyone think the monuments are grand without considering the nobility and honor of the fine soldiers of the Confederate Army.

Mr. Obama, tear up these parks.

#8 JK Brown on 2015-06-25 10:47 (Reply)

CUSTER'S LAST STAND

June 25, 1876

if Capt. Benteen had followed orders, Custer would be a historical footnote.

#9 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 10:52 (Reply)

Not taking issue with you Donny, just putting this up for those that might be interested.

Custer’s Last Stand Still Stands Up

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZP5LuTSs4kgJ:www.historynet.com/custers-last-stand-still-stands-up.htm+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

#9.1 feeblemind on 2015-06-25 11:24 (Reply)

thanks for the link.

exactly how the last part of the battle unfolded was complex, there were several "last stands" as the battalion disintegrated.

there is a time and motion study showing that if Benteen (who hated Custer) had rushed his battalion forward when summoned, he'd have joined Custer in time to extricate him while the fighting was still light at Medicine Tail Coulee. any joint advance would still have been fatal to all, but a fighting retreat down the backtrail was still a possibility.

#9.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 11:48 (Reply)

What I hate is now for the next few months or even year or so, the Confederate Battle Flag is going to be on display everywhere. And to be honest, any allure of the flag to me was destroyed after seeing one or two episodes of The Dukes of Hazard.

Sure it was the flag of a valiant army that fought for a nation set up to perpetuated a terrible institution. And yes, racist Democrats sullied it by making it a symbol of their segregationist policies. But it can never recover from being smeared as they symbol of two dumbass good ol boys.

Damn Yankees. Time and again they try to dictate to the South and even if every Southerner agreed, there ain't no way Yankees issuing orders isn't going to get people's backs up.

Upside - this could be a grand time to improve people's knowledge of the Civil War.

#10 JK Brown on 2015-06-25 10:58 (Reply)

I doubt the South would have perpetuated slavery. Many thought slavery was a fact of life and didn't really care if it ended (Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson come to mind), but didn't want to be told what to do. Slavery's days were numbered, but the South was certainly not anxious to end it.

#10.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 11:28 (Reply)

the founding fathers saw this as an insolvable issue, probably it was insolvable except in the unforeseeable carnage of the Civil war. the constitution they negotiated has to answer for the gross immoralities of the 3/5 compromise, the continuation of the slave trade, extension of slavery into new states with no legal end to slavery in sight.

how many years of slavery do you think were fair?

answer from the point of view of a slave.

hint: Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, paraphrase: "every drop of blood drawn with the lash [was] paid by another drawn with the sword".

#10.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 12:11 (Reply)

Apparently I have not made myself clear. The compromise with the slave states was a deal with the devil but it was a necessary deal in order to have an independent country at all. Viewing the Constitution as a document claiming that some people are only worth 3/5 of another person does not take into account the efforts of powerful forces in the formation of our country to eliminate slavery at the outset. We can argue whether the deal should have been made, but the world would be a far different place - especially here.

Does it even need to be said that the institution of slavery is abhorrent in any context, but even more so in a "free society"? I don't argue that there is anything cheery about how long it would have taken for the South (which, if we're honest includes the "Northern states" of Maryland and Delaware) to come to its senses about the damage it inflicts on its society and its economy, not to mention the slaves. I only argue that that day was going to come regardless of whether there was a war to end it.

I also eluded that the Civil War was not solely about slavery, though it was a central issue. In the time, the states were considered to be sovereign states and states rights was large part of the mix.

#10.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 13:00 (Reply)

do YOU think the Constitution, a deal with the devil ratified in 1788, was worth ten years of new slave imports, 77 years of slavery and 600,000 war dead?

#10.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 13:17 (Reply)

Let's assume that we did not gain independence. England ended slavery in 1830 so your question about the duration of slavery should be thirty five years rather than 77.

Another way of stating your question is whether I support the formation of the US. I do. Do you? But I think the context of your question requires that I transport myself back to the 1770s with current understandings and sensibilities and the knowledge that in the future, 600,000 Americans would be killed freeing slaves which is absurd.

#10.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 13:37 (Reply)

I'm not asking hypotheticals, I'm asking you if you think the constitution, as ratified, was worth the price that was eventually paid by 1865.

personally, I don't. I don't think the founders, given perfect foresight, would either. but they did know they were delaying resolving a festering problem that wasn't going to get better on its own.

the constitution had nothing to do with how the US gained independence. independence was declared in 1776 and won by force of arms, the articles of confederation were ratified in '81.

#10.1.1.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 14:09 (Reply)

I take your point about the Constitution. Thanks for correcting me.

Would the alternative be that the slave states would be free to form their own country?

#10.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 14:15 (Reply)

one solution was go back and start horsetrading, always understanding that one of the things on the table is a grave moral issue, and that failure to resolve this now only delays the inevitable. how this might have been accomplished is speculation but a working solution was possible. (post CW, a slaveless South did not evaporate)

the other solution is, as you suggest, let the southern states go. this is ultimately a matter of personal morality. if you are a Founder, ask yourself if you want to form a more perfect union with someone who believes "all men are created equal" doesn't apply to the men he owns.

#10.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 14:41 (Reply)

Again, I can't disagree with you, but I suspect that there were as many horses traded in the writing of the Constitution as could be traded. I'm not sure which option I would take.

I support the right of sovereign states to secede so maybe that is the one I might choose, but it would be a sad choice.

#10.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 15:15 (Reply)

A very questionable linking of "result" and "price." Do I think it was a good thing that the United States was established in advance of its having cured some very serious injustices? Yes. If my ancestors had waited until women got the vote, for instance, it's unlikely they'd have managed to become independent.

People's right to fight for independence is not contingent on their having presented a spotless moral record--not that I would grant, in any case, that the future U.S. came up short in any balanced comparison with English society as a whole.

Your argument seems to be that a different path to revolution might have shortened the life of slavery as an institution. I have no idea how we could reach that conclusion, but if we somehow could, then we could talk about whether a particular political goal was worth deliberately avoiding that solution.

#10.1.1.1.1.2 Texan99 on 2015-06-25 19:15 (Reply)

if you have problems with "result" and "price", take it up with Lincoln, the reference was drawn from the the second inaugural where talks about blood drawn from the lash repaid by blood drawn from the sword.

the revolution was started and ended before the articles of confederation drawn by the second continental congress were ratified by the states. you're creating a false issue by conflating the constitution with the revolution.

#10.1.1.1.1.2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 20:37 (Reply)

My comment stands even if you replace "revolution" with "constitution."

What you propose is a nonsensical way to evaluate the original adoption of the Constitution; it requires a fantastical assumption that people in other times and circumstances were making judgments according to your priorities (or even mine) and with perfect knowledge of everything you've seen happen in the interim. Let's see, we want to solve the problem of a tyrannical monarchy and try an experiment in increased (though hardly universal) self-determination. No, let's not, unless we can be sure it's morally faultless according to every conceivable standard; otherwise, we should just knuckle under to whatever the king wants until that bright day when human fallibility has been overcome. It'll be way better then.

Should this thought experiment help us evaluate whether the Constitution is worth keeping today? At best it might help us decide when and how we should amend it. At worst it's a shallow sophistry.

#10.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Texan99 on 2015-06-26 12:14 (Reply)

the Founders punted the slavery problem, that's why the Constitution allows for a 10 year continuation of slave imports, the continuance of slavery. even then the need to have additional temporizing compromises allowing slave and non-slave states admission was obvious.

we'll never agree on the seriousness of this flaw because on a fundamental level you regard the slave trade and slavery itself as morally equivalent to issues like tariffs or representative apportionment, just one thing to be traded in return for another, and, like so many others, are willfully blind to any deficiencies of character in the Founders or texts in the as-ratified Constitution. why weren't the 13th and 15th amendments adopted with the original bill of rights?

regardless of why the Civil War started, and there were many reason, by 1865, slavery was the salient issue. since you worship the Founders, you must give Lincoln his due, read the second inaugural address, he lays out the course and reasons for the war.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp

the Founders had a great idea, but one with a huge plot hole. Lincoln acknowledged this, you can't.

#10.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-26 12:56 (Reply)

Of course the Constitution had a big hole in it; more than one. Slaves, women, many things. But how does that support the point you've been making?

Do you honestly think you're the only one around with sufficient moral clarity to see what was wrong with the original Constitution? It seems like unwarranted preening.

#10.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Texan99 on 2015-06-26 19:38 (Reply)

I also eluded that the Civil War was not solely about slavery, though it was a central issue. In the time, the states were considered to be sovereign states and states rights was large part of the mix.

The South's position on state's rights was rather selective. The South certainly did not see that northern states had any rights to deal with fugitive slaves as the northern states saw fit. This became an increasingly more controversial issue after the passage of Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

QUOTE:

In response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 penalized officials who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave, and made them liable to a fine of $1,000 (about $28,000 in present-day value). Law-enforcement officials everywhere were required to arrest people suspected of being a runaway slave on as little as a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf.[6] In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work.

Slave owners needed only to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial, the law resulted in the kidnapping and conscription of free blacks into slavery, as suspected fugitive slaves had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations.[7]

There was widespread opposition to the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act in the North, including efforts to nullify the law at the state legislature level. It is of note that the so-called states' rights advocates from the South were adamant that the Fugitive Slave Law be enforced. The slavers were infuriated that many in the north did not want to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act. From South Carolina "Causes of Secession":

QUOTE:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

State's rights for me in the South, but not for thee in the North, was the way the slavers viewed State's Rights.

Disclaimer: I had relatives who were foot soldiers on both sides. One relative, the son of the alleged biggest slaveholder in the county, was a Confederate Colonel killed in the conflict. Another relative was killed at Harper's Ferry, on the side of John Brown.

#10.1.1.1.2 Gringo on 2015-06-25 15:10 (Reply)

I don't doubt what you say. In addition, if I remember, the declaration of secession from South Carolina didn't mention that issue at all.

I take my supposition from the attitudes of two major personalities from the South (Lee and Jackson), from the knowledge that state sovereignty was much more important then than now, and from reasoning that even though there were certainly young southern men who didn't own slaves surely wanted to preserve the institution, buy I expect there was also a great many who were motivated at least as much by the feeling that they didn't want somebody else telling them what to do. I think it's easier to get young men to fight and die for their independence than preserving the slavery of others which doesn't benefit him.

#10.1.1.1.2.1 mudbug on 2015-06-25 16:09 (Reply)

In addition, if I remember, the declaration of secession from South Carolina didn't mention that issue at all.

If by "the issue," you mean State's Rights, the Declaration of Secession did mention it, at least implicitly. Yes indeed. Look at "to nullify," in the Declaration. Recall that in the 1830s, South Carolina was the center in the US of efforts for states to nullify federal laws. South Carolina was the original nullification state. There was a big dust-up between Calhoun and Jackson. Yet in the Declaration some three decades after the nullification controversy, the delegates from the original nullification state are very much against efforts in the northern states "to nullify" the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Nullification is about where you draw the line between federal power and states' power.

buy I expect there was also a great many who were motivated at least as much by the feeling that they didn't want somebody else telling them what to do. I think it's easier to get young men to fight and die for their independence than preserving the slavery of others which doesn't benefit him.

Slavery was the reason for secession. Nonetheless, many non-slaveholders fought for the South because their homeland was being invaded. Recall the scene from Burns's Civil War epic where the Yankee soldier asks the Confederate soldier why he is fighting. "Because you're here," was the reply.

#10.1.1.1.2.1.1 Gringo on 2015-06-25 23:08 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Nonetheless, many non-slaveholders fought for the South because their homeland was being invaded.

Most notably, Robert E. Lee himself, who believed that was wrong and did not think the Southern states should secede.
Nevertheless, he identified more as a Virginian than as an "American" and he felt duty-bound to serve and defend his home state even though he disagreed with it.

One of the legacies of the Civil War is that it fundamentally rewrote the American identity. Prior to the war, we were an association of States -- but afterward, we became One Nation (that our forefathers had "conceived in liberty." etc.).

From our present-day vantage point (several generations fully-immersed in the idea that we are Americans, who -- almost by accident -- happen to live in different states), it is nigh unto impossible for us to appreciate the difference in what "patriotism" means to us from what it meant to our antebellum forbears.

The closest analogue in our time is if one of our generals were offered supreme command of NATO forces for the purposes of prosecuting a war against the USA. (Let's enrich the analogy by supposing that this general is {insert interest/identity group here}, and the war is to correct documented human rights abuses against the {same group} in the USA.) No matter how much this general agrees with the policies and goals of NATO, we would not look kindly on acceptance of that command. In fact, most of us would consider it treason.

#10.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 aporitc on 2015-06-26 11:47 (Reply)

. . . believed that slavery was wrong. . .

(one never proofreads enough, it seems)

#10.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 aporitic on 2015-06-26 11:50 (Reply)

Re: Political Double-Cross Of Young Americans

Those lefty college students are going to be some kind of ticked off when they find out that they're supposed to pay for 1/2 of a retiree's SS, service on at least $20T of US debt, and their student loans.

On second thought, I wonder. A lot of them seemed pretty happy about getting us here and so far seem more concerned that we let men who wish they were women use the women's bathroom.

#11 mudbug on 2015-06-25 11:15 (Reply)

I read the article about the "poor" rising up last night and discussed it with the spouse. I think the problem the writer of this editorial has is that there aren't truly "poor" people in the U.S.

The only way you get people to rise up en masse is to squash them so thoroughly that the only escape is an uprising. Considering our 'poor' have piles of programs for food, housing, healthcare, and even ways to get cash benefits, I don't think they are anywhere close to an 'uprising.'

What the author fails to notice is that the Tea Party is the beginning of an uprising. And what happened at Ted Bundy's ranch shows me there are people out there who will definitely defend freedom when they are pushed to the breaking point. That should be his real focus...when you take away freedom through regulations, when you tax people more and more, when you make it harder to find a job b/c illegals keep flooding in, that is when you experience an uprising.

#12 MissT on 2015-06-25 11:45 (Reply)

totally disagree with why revolutions happen.

revolutions or rebellions happen when a class or some group thinks it can gain something. don't confuse the cannon fodder with the men behind the rebellion.

FYI, my experience (from living in Nevada) is that most people know the Cliven Bundy is a thief. (Ted was a serial killer)

the poor in America don't rise up because they've been trained by the system not to. they've traded the actual power of picking up a rifle or a rock or molotov cocktail with the appearance of change, expressed in more welfare, osamaphones, OWS, internet rage over meaningless things like flags, all facilitated by demoncrap leaders.

#12.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 13:30 (Reply)

From Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell

QUOTE:

A person of bourgeois origin goes through life with some expectation of getting what he wants, within reasonable limits. Hence the fact that in times of stress ‘educated’ people tend to come to the front; they are no more gifted than the others and their ‘education’ is generally quite useless in itself, but they are accustomed to a certain amount of deference and consequently have the cheek necessary to a commander. That they will come to the front seems to be taken for granted, always and everywhere. In Lissagaray’s History of the Commune there is an interesting passage describing the shootings that took place after the Commune had been suppressed. The authorities were shooting the ringleaders, and as they did not know who the ringleaders were, they were picking them out on the principle that those of better class would be the ringleaders. An officer walked down a line of prisoners, picking out likely-looking types. One man was shot because he was wearing a watch, another because he ‘had an intelligent face’. I should not like to be shot for having an intelligent face, but I do agree that in almost any revolt the leaders would tend to be people who could pronounce their aitches.

There is a reason the DemProgs work hard to deny the poor, especially minorities, a good education. As well as to hammer them daily to induce an aversion to expectations.

#12.1.1 JK Brown on 2015-06-25 14:16 (Reply)

I beg to differ, Donny. I studied revolutions in graduate school (whatever you might think of that experience, I will leave it up to you) to find the core things that pushed countries over the edge. There were always multiple elements that had to be in play at the same time to include the poor/lower classes in desperate circumstance. These people do not 'rise up' in a revolutionary sense to just 'gain something'...it was always about finding themselves in a situation that was 100% untenable.

#12.1.2 MissT on 2015-06-25 15:36 (Reply)

I think you need to look more closely at who is leading these revolts, it's not the peasants.

#12.1.2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 21:43 (Reply)

Note in regards to the Confederate flag issue:

It is important to keep the CBF hysteria in context and to see why it could happen now as opposed to the previous 150 years. Just six months ago:

QUOTE:

Dateline: December 4, 2014 – New York Times

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

As Mary Landrieu, a Democratic senator from Louisiana, lost re-election in Saturday’s runoff election, as expected, the Republicans vanquished the last vestige of Democratic strength in the once solidly Democratic Deep South. In a region stretching from the high plains of Texas to the Atlantic coast of the Carolinas, Republicans control not only every Senate seat, but every governor’s mansion and every state legislative body.

#13 JK Brown on 2015-06-25 13:57 (Reply)

The fact the the call to eliminate the Confederate flag (which seems like an unnecessary curtailing of 1st amendment rights to me - is this really like crying fire in a crowded theater?) was led by Mitt Romney was quite surprising.

The fact that it was taken up so quickly by so many southern Republican governors was even more surprising...and hints of a conference call. It makes me think that there is a national-level Republican strategy behind this sudden surge of interest in banning the Confederate flag.

This is so out of the blue that it looks like a power play by the mainstream Republican party over the far-out Tea Party right wingers. It's unfortunate that the mainstream Republican Party has decided that this is the issue with which to win over new voters, but there you have it.

#14 JM01 on 2015-06-25 14:20 (Reply)

I'm good with them taking the Confederate battle flag down from the SC and AL state capitols, even though I grew up playing in Civil War battle fields.

The lowering of the flags on those state capitols is lowering a flag raised by racist, segregationist Democrat governors 100 years after the war and as a snub to the Civil Rights movement. That Republicans are now removing these snubs is very appropriate.

The stopping selling, removal of Civil War based games from the Apple Store, well, that's just ignorant on the part of Tim Cook and the Walmart CEO. They are no doubt what we've come to expect from higher? educations, i.e., no concept of history or critical thought. Sadly both went to Southern universities.

#14.1 JK Brown on 2015-06-25 18:18 (Reply)

Agreed. When the Southern Democrats appropriated the regalia of the Confederacy for their anti-civil rights purposes they also fouled the nest when it comes to the historic meaning (or meanings) of that flag. Whatever it may mean to a given individual, the fact that government officers hoisted it as an intentionally racist banner means that, so long as it continues to fly under the color of government authority, it signals a failure of current governments to repudiate that racist intent.

Take down the flags from official government buildings. Renounce the illiberal legacy of the Southern Democrats. This is well and good.

The emerging mania for erasing all historical mention of the confederacy is something different, though. As if one could magic away evil by resorting to he-who-must-not-be-named euphemisms. Historical revisionism is a sick and twisted mindset.

#14.1.1 Thos. on 2015-06-26 12:21 (Reply)

Here is a beautiful example of the integrity of the Democratic party. Every resident of Montana is trying to maintain and preserve what we have inherited. Democrats get elected over and over again on the promise to PRESERVE! But, recently as the faculty wife is so constant in reminding us--the power females from Seattle have moved into the state. Using the strength they get from the unions to force old judges into retirement and place their "chosen" judges into office. Well, well look what we have now. A democratic governor who was elected on conservation platform held secret meetings to decide which new group of 5 MILLION acres would be clear cut! Clear cut in order to "shore up the timber industry". We don't have much left of a timber industry most of our mills closed down in the 1980-2000 period. Why does he care now? Ohh I get it--he wants union votes. Not just loggers union--but, if the gals from Seattle have their way--the vote of every union member in any trade/profession in this state will be with Governor Bullock for "creating jobs". Here is the announcement that says he can meet in secret:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/bullock-s-office-says-it-s-not-required-to-publicize/article_511a4bf4-d044-5da7-84a7-6f0801fec96d.html

The local court just today decided that in fact it was ok to go ahead and log those 5 million acres--even if the public had no say. Well, so much for transparent government. You can go to the Missoulian website and type in Bullock into today's paper to get the whole summary of events. Read it and weep--and stay home in whatever union town you habitat!

#15 Apple Pie on 2015-06-25 15:24 (Reply)

Maybe it's time to replace the General Lee with a Pelosi GTxi SS/RT ...

#16 Soviet of Washington on 2015-06-25 15:27 (Reply)

Me - not quite a Yankee; Mid-Atlantic State born and raised. Never cared one way or the other about the Confederate Flag. I've always seen both sides.

However, with all the flap going on now about that flag I so want to go out a buy not just one - but several and hang them up all over!

Black leaders and other liberals are almost equating it to the Nazi's flag; but, nary a peep from them about the lyrics in black rap music which is chock full of the "N" word and just as bad words for women.

So which is really more damaging to the black community in the US? An old flag or black rap music?

#17 charles on 2015-06-25 18:03 (Reply)

This appears to be an extremely bad day here in Montana. Members of our law and justice committee have just been advised that they have to have learning/training sessions regarding sex/men/women/college town/demo party power/use of rape as a political weapons, etc.,etc. This is how it's done folks. Move your agents of change into the rebellious state--threaten every white male with charges of rape and whatever other ugly thing you can think of, force the legal community to change the law so that now we are no longer dependent upon evidence to find someone guilty. Get it done in the underpopulated states first then you have XXXX #### of states "who have already approved" and bingo you've got new judicial system, new constitution and whatever hell else these women want! Donny could you please have a go at some of these white male castratos that follow these gals around blindly? Thank you! Here is the orders:
http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2015-2016/Law-and-Justice/Committee-Topics/draft-sj24-study-plan-june-2015-5162RWXB.pdf

#18 Apple pie on 2015-06-25 19:20 (Reply)

It looks like they're just gathering information and won't be making any proposed laws until April of 2016. Not the time to worry.

#18.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-25 20:46 (Reply)

Thank you --

#19 Apple pie on 2015-06-25 22:50 (Reply)

At the start of the civil war there were about 600,000 slaves in the U.S. and less than 10,000 people owned slaves. More Americans were killed in the civil war to end slavery than there were slaves and slave owners.

100% of slaves brought to the U.S. were sold to slave ships captains by muslims in Africa. Slavery in Africa was mostly by muslims and the black Africans. There were almost twice as many white European slaves in Africa Than there were black African slaves in the U.S.

Slaves were brought to the new world by foreign ships and dumped/sold without the approval of any American government pretty much in the same way illegal drugs are today. The people who bought slaves in the U.S. were not the typical Americans anymore than the people who buy crack today are typical Americans. There were well over 30 million Americans of European descent who did not buy slaves or profit from slaves.

Slavery was a fact of life for millennia in every country on earth prior to 1861, the U.S. was not unique in this. What is unique is that the U.S. is the only country that fought a war to end slavery.

Salvery esixts today in only two cultures; muslims and African blacks. Ironic!

#20 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-06-26 00:08 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: At the start of the civil war there were about 600,000 slaves in the U.S. and less than 10,000 people owned slaves.

There were four million slaves in 1860, representing about a third of the population of the South, and about 400,000 slave owners.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

#20.1 Zachriel on 2015-06-26 08:49 (Reply)

it was legal to import slaves into the US for ten years after the ratification of the constitution, put a moral spin on that. specifically, that.

and I don't give a rat's ass about muslims in the 18th century.

comparing the legal slave imports to illegal drug trafficking is a grossly stupid argument on so many levels.

#20.2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-26 11:45 (Reply)

The numbers of slaves was inflated over the years because it served the interest of some special interest groups. The uninflated slave population in 1860 was about 600,000.

The comparison between how slaves arrived in America and how illega drugs arrive in America is suprisingly similar. Many/most of the slave ship captians worked with friends on shore to sneak into port and unload their cargo. 99% of the white U.S. population did not own slaves and most did not condone slavery It was something that happened on the fringes and against the will of most Americans at that time, very similar to how drugs are brought in and distributed today.

On the legality of slavery it was legal in the entire world!!! Did the framers of the constitution have the ability to change that??? We kill millions of babies today and the president, congress and the Supreme Court approve of it. A moral sin far worse than slavery but almost everyone applauds it and if you dare speak against it you will pay the price for voicing your opinion.

#21 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-06-26 20:22 (Reply)

only 600,000 slaves?

now I feel better. 600,000 is certainly an acceptable number.

really sorry about the overreaction.

I thought there was, like, 700,000.

#21.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-06-26 21:10 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The uninflated slave population in 1860 was about 600,000.

Um, no. There was an actual census in 1860, and slaves, being property, were a matter of public record and subject to taxation as property. There were four million slaves in the U.S. in 1860.

GoneWithTheWind: 99% of the white U.S. population did not own slaves and most did not condone slavery

Four hundred thousand people were slave owners of record in the South. Most women, children, and young adults did not own slaves in their own name, but were part of households that owned slaves. About one in three households in the Confederacy owned slaves.

#21.2 Zachriel on 2015-06-27 09:46 (Reply)

The data was inflated to make the issue fit the narrative. There are sources which shows the slave population was 600,000 and then there is wikipedia which is a tool of the left and often used to distort the facts to fit the leftist propaganda.

Your last statement "Most women, children, and young adults did not own slaves in their own name, but were part of households that owned slaves" shows pretty much how we reach the needed higher number of slave owners to allow the left to castigate all whites for acts of a handful of whites.

You have to wonder why the data must be altered to prove a point. Does it really matter to history if there were 10,000 slave owners or 400,000? No unless your intent is to implicate all Southerners. Today millions of people use and deal in illegal drugs. Should I be blamed for this since I have never used any illegal drugs? Similarly should the 30 million Americans in 1860 who never owned a slave be blamed for slavery?

#22 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-06-27 10:34 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The data was inflated to make the issue fit the narrative. There are sources which shows the slave population was 600,000 and then there is wikipedia which is a tool of the left and often used to distort the facts to fit the leftist propaganda.

Our data is from the 1860 census, an actual enumeration, supported by property records from the period.

GoneWithTheWind: Your last statement "Most women, children, and young adults did not own slaves in their own name, but were part of households that owned slaves" shows pretty much how we reach the needed higher number of slave owners to allow the left to castigate all whites for acts of a handful of whites.

There were 400,000 slave owners of record, most of whom had families. Your discomfort doesn't change the facts.

GoneWithTheWind: No unless your intent is to implicate all Southerners.

Our point was to correct your misinformation.

#22.1 Zachriel on 2015-06-27 10:44 (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

Thursday, June 25. 2015

Thursday morning links