The theory being presented here is that the USA went to war in Iraq in order to secure its dollar as the reserve currency.
If that's true, it's really dumb policy. In the USA's own labs, it proved the concept of molten salt reactors which could use thorium, which is nearly inexhaustible in quantity. Basing an economy upon trading in petrodollars is really stupid and dangerous.
Instead of importing trillions of dollars of oil, it could have exported the equivalent amount in the new technology. It need not have spent treasure and blood to defend that which was not necessary, and was in fact, contrary to its own interests.
The left cannot escape responsibility. This was a bipartisan stupidity, if it is indeed the case.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
The Road to Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 – Dick Morris TV: History Video!
The Road to Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 – Dick Morris TV: History Video!
There's history as it is, and alternative history as a sort of "what if" exercise.
Morris describes the compromise in terms of how it led to Civil War. But what if the pitfall had been avoided and no civil war took place? We'd see a completely different kind of world today.
How might the difference occurred? The South was aware of its increasingly poor political situation vis-a-vis the North. Now, if that could have been averted, then the most objectionable part of the compromise might have also been averted--The Fugitive Slave Act.
If the territories had been combined into a very large state, and then admitted, then the political disadvantage of the South could have been mitigated. Maybe you could have combined them into two megastates---Texas and California. Each of these two states could have held land gained from Mexico. California would enter as a free state, Texas as a slave state.
Actually, it appears that President Zachary Taylor favored a similar approach, but he died in office before such a proposal could be implemented. It might have worked, as Texas may have been subdivided into two slave states in order to balance the addition of two free states of New Mexico and California.
The Utah and New Mexico territories were also set up as a result of the compromise. One could speculate that if a separate state of Deseret had been established, which would have encompassed all the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and might have averted at least some of the insecurity felt by Southerners. This may have made the Fugitive Slave Law unnecessary, or a less harsh measure possible. With a little foresight such as this, a the future war might have been averted.
However, nothing came of Deseret. The Fugitive Slave Law went into effect. Popular sovereignty, which was the basis for organizing the new territories, became a bone of contention itself.
The loss of Taylor and Clay was a critical factor. The war happened and the rest is history.
There's history as it is, and alternative history as a sort of "what if" exercise.
Morris describes the compromise in terms of how it led to Civil War. But what if the pitfall had been avoided and no civil war took place? We'd see a completely different kind of world today.
How might the difference occurred? The South was aware of its increasingly poor political situation vis-a-vis the North. Now, if that could have been averted, then the most objectionable part of the compromise might have also been averted--The Fugitive Slave Act.
If the territories had been combined into a very large state, and then admitted, then the political disadvantage of the South could have been mitigated. Maybe you could have combined them into two megastates---Texas and California. Each of these two states could have held land gained from Mexico. California would enter as a free state, Texas as a slave state.
Actually, it appears that President Zachary Taylor favored a similar approach, but he died in office before such a proposal could be implemented. It might have worked, as Texas may have been subdivided into two slave states in order to balance the addition of two free states of New Mexico and California.
The Utah and New Mexico territories were also set up as a result of the compromise. One could speculate that if a separate state of Deseret had been established, which would have encompassed all the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and might have averted at least some of the insecurity felt by Southerners. This may have made the Fugitive Slave Law unnecessary, or a less harsh measure possible. With a little foresight such as this, a the future war might have been averted.
However, nothing came of Deseret. The Fugitive Slave Law went into effect. Popular sovereignty, which was the basis for organizing the new territories, became a bone of contention itself.
The loss of Taylor and Clay was a critical factor. The war happened and the rest is history.
Hitchcock Reveals SHOCKING Secrets of VERTIGO!!!
In my opinion, he takes this a little too far. Necrophilia? Too much.
Eight of the World’s Most Incredible Swimming Pools
The biggest and most amazing swimming pools on Earth.
That first one is one that I'd never get into.
That first one is one that I'd never get into.
 |
| No way, Jose, that I get into this pool. |
This may make you think twice about your habits
I'm putting this up because it shows what a bad habit drinking sodas can be. All that sugar. Yes, I have that habit, hopefully I can kick it after watching this.
Boy-Girl Theory and Liberalism
This idea of the Boy-Girl Theory comes from Robert Ringer's book Winning Through Intimidation. What is the Boy-Girl Theory? Ringer relates it to the games people play in courtship, viz: boy wants girl and comes on too strong---girl doesn't want boy. But if boy acts cool, girl wants boy. What it boils down to is this: people want the thing that they think they can't have. So boy acts cool and the girl wants him, and vice versa.
What does that have to do with liberalism? Well, I got to thinking about it and have posted here several times my opinion that liberals seem to be interested in only things that can never work. If it works, they don't like it. If it doesn't work, and could never work, liberals love it. I connected the two dots. Liberals want what they want because they know it can't work and that's why they want it. It's the old boy-girl game that Ringer was talking about.
It's that or it's the Death Cult. They want to die and take everyone with them. Like Reverend Jim Jones and his death cult in Guyana. Maybe in its more virulent form, liberalism is a Death Cult. In a more benign form, it is only the boy-girl game. Whatever the case may be, liberals must know that their ideas can't work, but that's why they want them. When others try to confront them with their pathology, they can act out in destructive ways.
Yes, and they project. It's not Them. It's YOU.
You don't get any problem-solving with them because solving problems is not what it's about with these folk. It's about belief. If only they can get everybody to believe with them and do what they say, the world will become a utopia. Utopias can only exist in the imagination. They aren't real and can never be.
If you disagree, you are against them and you are evil. There can be no rational discussion when you discuss faith. You believe and are part of the group, or you don't and you are a cast-out.
But merely believing a thing to be so doesn't make it so. The process of reasoning can determine the truth or falsity of something. But maybe not in all things. Truth is a slippery thing.
Humans are susceptible to this because of the need to believe in something which can explain that which cannot be explained otherwise.
It's not an easy problem to solve. Likely as not, it will show itself in all societies in some form or another at some point in time. We may be in such a time now in this country.
Jeff Zucker Succeeds in Transforming CNN Into MSNBC White
ace
Bingo. The powers-that-be tell people what to think, and the people oblige. The powers-that-be edit out the applause because the bad guy cannot be applauded. The people oblige because they don't know any better because they won't think for themselves because they've been trained not to.
Update:
Obama regime is the cult of personality.
It doesn't matter what people do or say. We're accustomed to watching movies and TV, in which the what a character says or does is only incidental to his Heroism. The main determinant of whether someone's a hero or villain is simply how the movie treats him tonally.
Only the Designated Hero Wins Applause. AP edits out the standing ovation Paul received at the conclusion of his filibuster.[ emphasis added]
Bingo. The powers-that-be tell people what to think, and the people oblige. The powers-that-be edit out the applause because the bad guy cannot be applauded. The people oblige because they don't know any better because they won't think for themselves because they've been trained not to.
Update:
Obama regime is the cult of personality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)