Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 13 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1201. GregD Posted: April 07, 2013 at 07:19 AM (#4406534)
One complication of polygamy in a gender-equal age is that to work, the marriage contract has to be between every participant, repeated every time someone else is included. In a patriarchal age (there's a reason they 'em patriarchs!) there's no legal relationship between wife 2 and wife 4, since their legal relationships are all subsumed within the patriarch. The "emancipation of women" in modern society from coverture makes this no longer true, so you'd need increasingly complex legal contracts that would have to be redone at each step.

I suppose any change in legal marriage makes other changes in legal marriage marginally more possible. One big difference between polygamy and gay marriage--leaving aside all the others--is that in this context gay marriage requires one single change and no others (since marriage law no longer distinguishes between male and female legal roles, so you erase the gender in the marriage statute and literally nothing else) while polygamy would require a complicated series of legal changes.
   1202. Publius Publicola Posted: April 07, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4406597)
Joe Kennedy, who lost a son and almost a second in WWII, would differ -- as would millions of his contemporaries. I'd cast it more as a war we were provoked into, but 9/11 was also a provocation to war and a justifiable casus belli.


That's kind of a weird way of putting it. I suppose you could describe being bombarded in an attempt to sink your entire Pacific fleet as a provocation. I think it more accurate to call it an act of war. The Japanese followed up by attacking any American installation within their reach: Wake, the Philippines, Guam etc. The declaration of war a few days after Pearl was just a formality. And Germany declared war on us a few days after Pearl as well and immediately started sinking all our Atlantic merchant ships. Thus, we were at war whether we liked it or not.

BTW, after Pearl, not many were calling our involvement a war of choice. A few but not many. There was only one vote in the house that voted against the war declaration and that was by a rigid pacifist who was incapable of voting any of other way.
   1203. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4406617)
I suppose any change in legal marriage makes other changes in legal marriage marginally more possible. One big difference between polygamy and gay marriage--leaving aside all the others--is that in this context gay marriage requires one single change and no others (since marriage law no longer distinguishes between male and female legal roles, so you erase the gender in the marriage statute and literally nothing else) while polygamy would require a complicated series of legal changes.

A lot of the difficulty is if you're stuck in defining marriage as simply the contract that the government currently uses. Changes in partnership contracts to bring in new people is hardly an unusual contractual situation. I don't personally feel polygamy is good for society, but that's none of my business.
   1204. zenbitz Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4406621)
Every citizen of the United States thus has an interest in the territory of Montana, and it would be immoral for Montana to unilaterally liquidate that interest, save in the situation of severe and ongoing oppression of a kind that is not present. The other states could, of course, voluntarily cede their interests in the state of Montana, but that is a method of secession that has never really been challenged -- secession with the approval of the other states. So Montana has the right to ask permission to secede, but doesn't have the right to secede on its own.


This is a solid point. So I will amend to say: States *should* have the right to self-determination, including secession, BUT must compensate the federal government for any seized properties or territory. The other point last page about a legal internal right to secede being meaningless, it's only at the international level that such a legal fiction would exist is good too.


   1205. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:34 AM (#4406626)
A lot of the difficulty is if you're stuck in defining marriage as simply the contract that the government currently uses. Changes in partnership contracts to bring in new people is hardly an unusual contractual situation. I don't personally feel polygamy is good for society, but that's none of my business.


Again, if a libertarian future society wants to open up legal contracts of marriage to multiple parties without infringing the gains of women's rights, that's their choice. Future people get to decide on future social norms, not us. But the idea that marriage equality for gays and lesbians is equivalent or necessary to polygamy fails to understand the question at hand.

This is a solid point. So I will amend to say: States *should* have the right to self-determination, including secession, BUT must compensate the federal government for any seized properties or territory.


Interesting, this discussion of secession rights intermingled with this discussion of marriage definitions and rights. The thing about a union is, once you enter into it, you need a damned good reason to exit it. You write the vow down publicly and without compulsion, you hold to it. People who argue for easy secession due to "states' rights" apparently don't realize the damage done to marriage by no-fault divorce.
   1206. BDC Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4406629)
I've just been mulling over the thought-experiment of the US Fort Sumter existing in Confederate South Carolina along the lines of Guantanamo Bay.

I have nothing interesting to report, I'm just mulling :)
   1207. Morty Causa Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4406632)
Several people have mentioned this. Novice question: in a policy of containment, why would thousands of Americans have died each week?


The Japanese were not totally and thoroughly contained, especially on the Asian land mass.
   1208. Publius Publicola Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4406636)
This is a solid point. So I will amend to say: States *should* have the right to self-determination, including secession, BUT must compensate the federal government for any seized properties or territory.


I disagree with this. The states entered a binding agreement with their fellow states to a Union bound by constitutional statutes. They do not, nor should they, have the right to leave. I suppose they have the right to petition to leave but that petition is not a prerequisite to a reply in the affirmative. States entering and then leaving at will is too anarchic an arrangement. Everyone understood that in 1861. There were still people then who were old enough to remember the founding of the Union, Americans were justifiably proud of the government they created, and were extremely angry at those who were trying to tear it asunder. It was made even worse by the reason they were trying to tear it. As Grant put it, "...though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
   1209. Morty Causa Posted: April 07, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4406639)
It isn't just polygamy. If you de-sacramentalize (so to speak) marriage, this just won't have consequences wrt polygamy. Your way of viewing a social institution, especially one memorialized and time-honored like marriage, has effects. It could have dire effects. Marriage is a mammoth institution--it's the elephant in a society's living room. It affects everything. Making it just another contract would have far-reaching consequences.

And I'm not beating the taboo drum wrt, say, incestuous relationships. It could even be (it will likely be legally tested) non-sexual, non-romantic, arrangements, arrangements that would go to promote economic ends. Or charitable inclinations. Example: You have, say, a niece/nephew, a cousin, a child, who could be advantaged if she were your spouse. You love and care for this person (again, this is non-sexual). You'd like to help them out--if it doesn't hurt you. Maybe they have a serious illness and don't have insurance, maybe they could get a big tax write-off (and would kick back some to you?) and let us say, again, there's no question of a marital relation (we don't even live together, not even in the same city/state), but if there is no negative effect associated with entering into such an arrangement, why not? The permutations in envisioning scenarios here just need a fertile imagination. It just could be the law of unintended consequences will kick in big-time.

As for all this blather about Montana and the piffling and toshing of secession, our relationship as country, states, and localities is not just among us. There are out-groups. Let's have some sense of reality here. The Balkanization of America would not be pretty.
   1210. spike Posted: April 07, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4406704)
It could even be (it will likely be legally tested) non-sexual, non-romantic, arrangements, arrangements that would go to promote economic ends. Or charitable inclinations. Example: You have, say, a niece/nephew, a cousin, a child, who could be advantaged if she were your spouse. You love and care for this person (again, this is non-sexual). You'd like to help them out--if it doesn't hurt you. Maybe they have a serious illness and don't have insurance, maybe they could get a big tax write-off (and would kick back some to you?) and let us say, again, there's no question of a marital relation (we don't even live together, not even in the same city/state), but if there is no negative effect associated with entering into such an arrangement, why not? The permutations in envisioning scenarios here just need a fertile imagination. It just could be the law of unintended consequences will kick in big-time.

These can all be done right now by male/female couples under the current definition of marriage. Doesn't seem like anything has kicked in big-time along these lines.
   1211. Greg K Posted: April 07, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4406719)
Doesn't seem like anything has kicked in big-time along these lines.

That scenario certainly has been a boon for sit-com writers.
   1212. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 07, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4406733)

This is a solid point. So I will amend to say: States *should* have the right to self-determination, including secession, BUT must compensate the federal government for any seized properties or territory.


That just leads to the question what is appropriate compensation? I would say that the other states collectively have the right to decide what compensation, if any, would be acceptable, which leads back to the proposition that the permission of the other states is required.
   1213. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 07, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4406734)
Making it just another contract would have far-reaching consequences.


You've misspoke. Making it just another contract has had far-reaching consequences. One of which is that it's no longer even remotely possible to argue in good faith that the institution should be closed to same sex couples.

If you (or anyone else) really want to fight this fight you're going to need to build a time machine and go lobby hard against allowing Ronald Reagan to run for the Presidency, because as a divorcee it would be detrimental to the health of society to validate his lifestyle choices and undermine marriage at that level of social influence.

These cows, they are no longer in your barn.
   1214. Jay Z Posted: April 07, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4406751)
BTW, after Pearl, not many were calling our involvement a war of choice. A few but not many. There was only one vote in the house that voted against the war declaration and that was by a rigid pacifist who was incapable of voting any of other way.


I agree it wasn't a war of choice, but the Iraq War votes were similarly one-sided.
   1215. BDC Posted: April 07, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4406758)
what is appropriate compensation?

A problem that our latter-day Texas secessionists run up against. Maybe in 1860 it could have been a matter of buying Fort Sumter, but think of the issues involved in 2013. The Federal Government helped build the highways; it supports mortgages and student loans and funds all kinds of educational projects. Quite a few people's hip replacements were paid for by the Feds; how to acknowledge that? Farm subsidies have underwritten large sectors of the economy of many states. Let's calculate the amount of benefit bound up for decades in the oil depreciation allowance. On and on … I'm hardly even thinking of the fraction of things that the federal government has a claim to equity in.
   1216. zenbitz Posted: April 07, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4406767)
@1215 I think the problem solves itself. What matters is not so much the actual total investment by the US in Texas, but rather the price the US is willing to take to allow Texas to leave.

_HOW_ badly do you want to secede? I think the value to the US is probably in the Trillions (GSP of Texas was $1.3T in 2011).

   1217. Mefisto Posted: April 07, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4406787)
Yeah, but the benefits of losing TX are priceless.
   1218. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 07, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4406818)

A problem that our latter-day Texas secessionists run up against. Maybe in 1860 it could have been a matter of buying Fort Sumter, but think of the issues involved in 2013. The Federal Government helped build the highways; it supports mortgages and student loans and funds all kinds of educational projects. Quite a few people's hip replacements were paid for by the Feds; how to acknowledge that? Farm subsidies have underwritten large sectors of the economy of many states. Let's calculate the amount of benefit bound up for decades in the oil depreciation allowance. On and on … I'm hardly even thinking of the fraction of things that the federal government has a claim to equity in.

Sounds like they've actually been quite a burden - let 'em go =)
   1219. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 07, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4406839)
I agree it wasn't a war of choice, but the Iraq War votes were similarly one-sided.


The vote to declare war against Japan was 388 - 1 in the House and 82 - 0 in the Senate.

The Iraq war resolution was opposed by a majority of the Democrats in the House and by 21 Democratic (and 2 other) Senators
   1220. McCoy Posted: April 07, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4406881)
   1221. Jay Z Posted: April 07, 2013 at 08:17 PM (#4407136)
The vote to declare war against Japan was 388 - 1 in the House and 82 - 0 in the Senate.

The Iraq war resolution was opposed by a majority of the Democrats in the House and by 21 Democratic (and 2 other) Senators


Sorry, must have been thinking of Patriot Act vote.
   1222. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 07, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4407148)
I suppose any change in legal marriage makes other changes in legal marriage marginally more possible. One big difference between polygamy and gay marriage--leaving aside all the others--is that in this context gay marriage requires one single change and no others (since marriage law no longer distinguishes between male and female legal roles, so you erase the gender in the marriage statute and literally nothing else) while polygamy would require a complicated series of legal changes.

A lot of the difficulty is if you're stuck in defining marriage as simply the contract that the government currently uses. Changes in partnership contracts to bring in new people is hardly an unusual contractual situation. I don't personally feel polygamy is good for society, but that's none of my business.


While I agree with DJS that polygamy isn't good for society, I suspect it will not become a widespread phenomenon, just as I suspect that any harm will be minimal. If we live in a society where it will be legalized, it's probably because either a majority of our representatives want more than one spouse, or because people, generally, have adopted more broad definitions of love and privacy than they hold now. In short, the more likely a modern society is to legalize polygamy, the less harm polygamy is likely to do to that society.

I also think that while polygamy can get complicated in the legal sense, we have well developed schemes for adding partners or stakeholders in other areas. Complexity by itself doesn't discourage me. Also, among the folks I know freely entering into group marriages (none of those involved call it 'polygamy', fwiw), the typical number is four, consisting of two men and two women. That might be the most sustainable arrangement, though there isn't an arrangement in the world that will keep people from ganging up on each other, or eating the weak.

The problem with letting Texas secede is that you know they're going to run the state into the ground, be unable to make payments, and we're going to have to foreclose. We'll be stuck with them again, but after a decade or two of mismanagement. I suppose we could just take the top half of the state in compensation and refuse re-entry, but in either case it'll be an utter #### up.
   1223. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 07, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4407169)
The problem with letting Texas secede is that you know they're going to run the state into the ground, be unable to make payments, and we're going to have to foreclose. We'll be stuck with them again, but after a decade or two of mismanagement. I suppose we could just take the top half of the state in compensation and refuse re-entry, but in either case it'll be an utter #### up


That, and they'd almost certainly start a war with Mexico that would bleed into Arizona and New Mexico.
   1224. The District Attorney Posted: April 07, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4407176)
I read a little more about Quebec separatism, and one interesting aspect to me is the potential role of France. There is a long tradition of France agitating for it. Charles de Gaulle yelled "Vive le Québec libre!" at the 1967 Montreal Expo. The rumor (I got the impression it was never confirmed) was that, if the 1995 referendum had passed, Jacques Chirac would instantly have recognized Quebec's declaration of independence. And losing 2007 Presidential candidate Ségolène Royal made some comments that were interpreted as pro-separatism.

Now, Francois Mitterand and Nicolas Sarkozy were very anti-separatist, and I suspect that future French leaders would not really want to piss off the US and UK by going directly against them in a matter that ultimately wouldn't affect France much. However, it would after all be France pissing off the US and UK, so it couldn't be ruled out ;-)

I do think that, in what I read, the opposition of the US and UK was being underestimated. It was mentioned that someone prank called the Queen with a request to issue a statement in favor of non-separatism, and she was very willing to do so. And although direct US involvement in a Canadian matter would be incredibly unpopular in Canada, I think the US would do whatever they possibly could behind the scenes to avoid the economic and political shock of a separation.

Ultimately, I got the impression that a "pro-separatist" vote of just over 50%, with many of the "pro" voters assuming a more friendly post-separation Quebec-Canada relationship than Canada would actually want, was probably not going to hold up through all the various hurdles that separatism would have to clear. Even given that there was nothing anywhere specifying that 50% wasn't enough, there would simply have to be more political will behind the movement for it to ultimately succeed.

I could speculate about what Mexico's reaction would be to Texas separatism ;-), but I think Texas separatism is really crazy, while Quebec separatism is possible at some point, although pretty much everything that's happened since 1995 has conspired to make it less likely, with nothing on the current horizon to indicate any change in that trend.

Anyway, I guess it all ultimately shows that trying to figure out the "legality of secession" is a bit pie-in-the-sky. If you can negotiate a secession, it's legal, if not, it isn't.
   1225. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 07, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4407179)
Well, everybody, my dissertation defense is in the morning. Wish me luck--15 years of being a college student all comes down to this!
   1226. Morty Causa Posted: April 07, 2013 at 10:12 PM (#4407180)
Good luck. What are you defending?
   1227. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 07, 2013 at 10:24 PM (#4407183)
Again, if a libertarian future society wants to open up legal contracts of marriage to multiple parties without infringing the gains of women's rights, that's their choice. Future people get to decide on future social norms, not us. But the idea that marriage equality for gays and lesbians is equivalent or necessary to polygamy fails to understand the question at hand.

Why would it have to be a "future society" rather than some individual Mormon or Muslim plaintiff in 2014 with a good lawyer?

***
The problem with letting Texas secede is that you know they're going to run the state into the ground, be unable to make payments, and we're going to have to foreclose. We'll be stuck with them again, but after a decade or two of mismanagement. I suppose we could just take the top half of the state in compensation and refuse re-entry, but in either case it'll be an utter #### up.

LOL. If only Texas was as well-governed as Illinois, New York, and California, right?
   1228. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4407203)
Thanks, Morty. It's called "The Ford Foundation-MENC Contemporary Music Project (1959-1973): A View of Contemporary Music in America."
   1229. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 07, 2013 at 11:58 PM (#4407221)
LOL. If only Texas was as well-governed as Illinois, New York, and California, right?
Didn't we twice go over how California has been in much better shape since Brown replaced Arnold and the subprime disaster shrinks in the rearview mirror?
   1230. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4407225)

Aside from "much better shape" being debatable, "much better shape" and "much better shape than Texas" aren't synonymous.
   1231. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:31 AM (#4407227)
Good luck on the defense, Vaux!

Quebec independence would mean the breakup of Canada, and I don't think that would be in the interest of the United States at all. I would favor the US providing any and all aid to the Canadian government in such a case.
   1232. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 08, 2013 at 03:44 AM (#4407240)
Good luck, Vaux!

---------------------

Some scary #### from the NYT. The inevitability of 1984 because there's just too much money to be made:

Police Surveillance May Earn Money for City
By SAM ROBERTS Published: April 3, 2013

A unique public-private partnership that joined gut-level police acumen with advanced computer algorithms is proceeding toward two goals that rarely coincide: The policing system is making New York safer and it will also make money for the city, which is marketing it to other jurisdictions.

In the six months since the Domain Awareness System was unveiled, officials of Microsoft, which designed the system with the New York Police Department, said they have been surprised by the response and are actively negotiating with a number of prospective buyers, whom Microsoft declined to identify.

“The interest from the United States has come from smaller municipalities, from sheriff’s departments, and police chiefs from several major cities,” said Dave Mosher, vice president of Microsoft Services. “Outside the U.S., large sporting events have approached us, and also law enforcement — people who are interested in providing public security.”

Buyers would pay to access the software (at least several million dollars and more depending on the size of the jurisdiction and whether specifications have to be customized). New York City will receive 30 percent of the gross revenues from the sale of the system and access to any innovations developed for new customers. The revenue will be directed to counterterrorism and crime prevention programs.

The new system incorporates more than 3,500 cameras in public places, license-plate readers at every major Manhattan entry point, fixed and portable radiation detectors, real-time alerts transmitted from the 911 emergency system and a trove of Police Department data, including arrests and parking summonses.

The system cost about $30 million and took several years to put into effect. Since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced in August that the system would be marketed elsewhere, it has figured in a number of investigative coups that went beyond the system’s original purpose of counterterrorism in Lower Manhattan after the Sept. 11 attack.


If only we could get the mainstream right (or left, come to think of it) up in arms about this sort of crap.

   1233. BrianBrianson Posted: April 08, 2013 at 05:50 AM (#4407245)

Quebec independence would mean the breakup of Canada, and I don't think that would be in the interest of the United States at all. I would favor the US providing any and all aid to the Canadian government in such a case.


These days Canada's pegged as having the second most oil reserves among countries, and all the anglo parts would probably end up joining the States if the whole dominion collapsed. So there's some interest.
   1234. Greg K Posted: April 08, 2013 at 06:14 AM (#4407248)
It probably doesn't say much for my sanity, but I find #1233 much more terrifying than #1232.
   1235. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2013 at 08:10 AM (#4407258)
   1236. Publius Publicola Posted: April 08, 2013 at 08:39 AM (#4407275)
Good riddance to that #####.
   1237. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4407292)
my dissertation defense is in the morning

Go Vaux! We want to see a new handle for you by tonight :)
   1238. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4407293)
Domain Awareness System

Sounds like something the Seinfeld characters would buy via mailorder.
   1239. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4407294)
And when you have rested up, Vauz, maybe you could tell us something about your thesis (here on this thread or somewhere else at BTF).
   1240. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:16 AM (#4407297)
Vaux - my best wishes (you don't need luck).

Regarding Thatcher I don't agree with her policies, but much like Reagan I suspect she performed an important role in transforming things a bit (though much of it on both sides of the pond was probably a bit inevitable).
   1241. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:36 AM (#4407307)
Knock em dead, Vaux! They wouldn't let you in the room if you didn't belong there. You'll run circles around them.
   1242. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4407310)
Margaret Thatcher Is Dead


Queue "Tramp the Dirt Down," maestro.
   1243. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 09:59 AM (#4407317)
Oh, wait, the actual Margaret Thatcher is really dead? Nil nisi bonum.
   1244. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4407324)
Good riddance to that #####.

Thanks for letting us all know you're a classless piece of ####.
   1245. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4407327)
Good riddance to that #####.

Stay classy, leftists!!
   1246. Delorians Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4407332)
Good riddance to that #####.

Thanks for letting us all know you're a classless piece of ####.


Yep, because of that comment, I now have him on ignore.
   1247. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4407335)
Yep, because of that comment, I now have him on ignore.

But if he had called her a classless piece of ####, that would have been fine, I guess.

Such innocent, delicate, thornless flowers you all obviously are.
   1248. Delorians Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:34 AM (#4407342)
But if he had called her a classless piece of ####, that would have been fine, I guess.

Not sure if that's a reference to something I should recognize (a comment by another poster about something else)?

Anyway, I just thought it was in poor taste to insult someone like that on the day of their death. I wasn't going to post about it, but since Snapper did I though it noteworthy to mention that I agree with him.
   1249. The District Attorney Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4407344)
Sounds like something the Seinfeld characters would buy via mailorder.
"They say you grow hair... look like Stalin!"

Quebec independence would mean the breakup of Canada
These days Canada's pegged as having the second most oil reserves among countries, and all the anglo parts would probably end up joining the States if the whole dominion collapsed.
I don't see either one of these happening.

• I think a Quebexit would create a "rally around the flag" attitude in the rest of Canada.
• Canadian culture is antipathic to American culture. Although there's a lot of we-kid-because-we-love there, there is real feeling behind it as well.
• American Republicans don't even want to admit DC or Puerto Rico. Are they really going to admit at least half a dozen new Democratic states?
• Under different circumstances, I would say that the Maritimes, the area now cut off from the rest of Canada, might want to join the US just out of sheer convenience. But (no offense intended), since that is not the more productive area of the country, I don't think the US would be interested.

What you'd surely see is a huge shock to both the Canadian and Quebecois economy, and because of interrelatedness, in the US and ultimately the rest of the world as well. Then you'd have an interesting dichotomy, and I'm not sure how it would play out. If Canada continues to be hostile to Quebec, they can make life extremely difficult for the new country... which in turn would increase the chance that Quebec would come crawling back and ask for reunification. If Canada figures that it'd be a bad idea to have a failed state plopped in the middle of its territory and begins to co-operate with Quebec, then that is far more likely to make the separation permanent. I would bet on the former scenario if I had to, but I am really not sure; both seem plausible.

The separatist stuff I read speculated that the US would be willing to negotiate separate arrangements with Quebec even if it displeased Canada, but I don't think that's accurate; I think the US would follow Canada's lead.

As long as Quebec were out, Canadian politics would be less liberal and more "western" oriented than currently. In fact, they might literally want to move the capital of the country, if the border around Ottawa were to stay where it currently is.

(Another thing I gathered was that negotiating new borders would be a real bitca. Quebec would obviously insist on keeping the current borders, but many extremely important areas -- most notably Montreal, and the northern part of the province where the hydroelectric power is produced -- were very anti-separatist, and Canada would insist on those just as strongly.)
   1250. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4407345)
Anyway, I just thought it was in poor taste to insult someone like that on the day of their death. I wasn't going to post about it, but since Snapper did I though it noteworthy to mention that I agree with him.

Yes, but nothing -- not even death -- is more imperative than the leftist's urge -- nay, right -- to show just how deeply he feels.
   1251. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4407351)
Not sure if that's a reference to something I should recognize (a comment by another poster about something else)?

It was a reference to you directly quoting someone calling someone else a classless piece of ####. Did you immediately forget you did that?
   1252. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4407353)
It's amusing the extent to which Thatcher is probably more beloved among a broader base of Americans than she is among Britons...

That said, there's no doubt that she was a seminal figure of the late 20th century -- and no history of that period is complete without hefty mention of her. I think she was also a remarkable and interesting woman, even if I have serious disagreements with her on policy.

The debate over the Thatcher era has been happening for 20 years -- and probably will continue anew with fresh vigor now that she's passed... That said, I don't see the harm in a day of pause out of respect.
   1253. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4407356)
Yes, the Union was too easy on the Confederate States, I've come to think.


Disagree strongly. A harsher peace probably produces a situation not unlike Northern Ireland.

The South absolutely accepted they were beat. The myths that were crafted were not of the nature that would make anybody want to go a second round (They ground us down with superior numbers/resources. As regional myths go that's not too bad in terms in terms of keeping a peace)

Jim Crow's establishment came from playing the political game well enough. Basically getting enough people outside the South to either accept (in return for support in other areas) or at least look the other way.

And it's practically inevitable that the South (voting as a block) would find allies in the party out of power. The only people with the appetite for a lengthy, harsh (and expensive) occupation were the Radical Republicans and there's just no way they'd stay in power long enough to get what you want.
   1254. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4407362)
The South absolutely accepted they were beat.

Moreso then than now, probably. There's a bar around the corner from my house where you practically have to walk around a Confederate flag to get into the place. In rural New York.
   1255. formerly dp Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:55 AM (#4407365)
Vaux, knock it out of the park today. There's nothing quite like that first drink after the dissertation defense.
   1256. Greg K Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4407368)
(Another thing I gathered was that negotiating new borders would be a real bitca. Quebec would obviously insist on keeping the current borders, but many extremely important areas -- most notably Montreal, and the northern part of the province where the hydroelectric power is produced -- were very anti-separatist, and Canada would insist on those just as strongly.)

It poses a bit of a problem if you want to found a nation on the principle of language and culture when only 65% of the citizens of your biggest city speak that language.

EDIT: Or, are native speakers of that language I should say.
   1257. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4407369)
A harsher peace probably produces a situation not unlike Northern Ireland

Although Northern Ireland, after 30 years of hell, is now a popular tourist destination for people from both Britain and the Republic. (I first spent a lot of time in Ireland in 1981, which was in some ways the absolute nadir of the whole situation; to visit Dublin today and see signs on buses promoting idyllic package tours of the North is extremely weird, if delightful.) By contrast, the peace that was established in 1865 led to over a hundred years of appalling human rights abuses.

Interesting comments by the DA and others above on secessions and disintegrations show just how far-fetched US secession has become. There are a lot of examples of nations dissolving, some within very recent memory, and they've almost always been forced by dire necessity or the collapse of whole constitutions (as indeed the US Civil War was). Cheerfully saying goodbye to Montana is not really imaginable.

And I appreciate that many would be happy to see Texas go, but wait till we impose a Willie Nelson embargo. After six months of never getting to hear "Blue Eyes Cryin' in the Rain," y'all will agree to any terms.
   1258. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4407371)
Disagree strongly. A harsher peace probably produces a situation not unlike Northern Ireland.
Like in other ends-of war scenarios, the balance is hard, as you say. The more you extract, the more you risk long-term violent conflict. But if you don't extract anything, you keep the same knuckleheads in power. It's possible the North could have done more to build up collaborators in the South and displace the old Confederates without provoking Northern Ireland, but it's also likely that some states would have always posed problems since there were not enough loyalists in Mississippi or South Carolina to build upon. Aside from equity questions about the way freedpeople and white loyalists made out after the war (pretty rough in both cases), the practical question would be how do you build a biracial Republican Party in the South so that it isn't automatic that the whole region allies with, and then eventually nearly controls, the Democratic Party. And Republicans worried about that but they never found a workable solution.
   1259. formerly dp Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4407374)
Margaret Thatcher gets about 25% of the credit for Alan Moore's early career. So that's a pretty big accomplishment.
   1260. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4407375)
But if he had called her a classless piece of ####, that would have been fine, I guess.

If Publicus had just died, I wouldn't call him what I called him. But since he is very much alive, he gets what he deserved.
   1261. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4407377)
GOP Congressman Steve Stockman goes on ignore, too, right?

The best way to honor Baroness Thatcher is to crush liberalism and sweep it into the dustbin of history. What are you doing this morning?
   1262. Greg K Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4407381)
Ireland's a tough analogy, not just because of BDCs point about it seemingly moving in such a positive direction in a (comparatively) short time, but paradoxically because the various incarnations of hell also stretch back five or six-hundred years.
   1263. CrosbyBird Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4407383)
Anyway, I just thought it was in poor taste to insult someone like that on the day of their death.

While I don't consider Margaret Thatcher to be one of these people, there are some people that improve the world with their passing. It's in poor taste to celebrate that death in front of the people that loved them, but a bit of public venting on a message board that will never be read by family or friends is a pretty small transgression.
   1264. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4407384)
I understand people--esp Britons--who feel differently, but I can't imagine having strong feelings to Thatcher's death. Her defeat? Heck, yes, I had strong feelings about that even as a teenager. Her career? Sure? But she's been totally irrelevant for years even and maybe especially in her party. Nothing is changed politically by her passing.
   1265. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4407385)
Today isn't a day for insults, it's a day for those who've spent years railing against Barack Obama's imperial Presidency and arrogant refusal to compromise to talk about how much they admire Margaret Thatcher.
   1266. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4407389)
Disagree strongly. A harsher peace probably produces a situation not unlike Northern Ireland.

The South absolutely accepted they were beat. The myths that were crafted were not of the nature that would make anybody want to go a second round (They ground us down with superior numbers/resources. As regional myths go that's not too bad in terms in terms of keeping a peace)

Jim Crow's establishment came from playing the political game well enough. Basically getting enough people outside the South to either accept (in return for support in other areas) or at least look the other way.

And it's practically inevitable that the South (voting as a block) would find allies in the party out of power. The only people with the appetite for a lengthy, harsh (and expensive) occupation were the Radical Republicans and there's just no way they'd stay in power long enough to get what you want.


I tend to agree with this... On a pragmatic level, RR solutions were unworkable -- and indeed, if only Lincoln had lived. He alone had the right combination of head and heart to properly navigate the immediate post-war period.

One beef I have, however, is the way that the 'Radical Republicans' have been presented.

I was educated entirely in the northern part of Indiana... a Union state... in the 1980s. The history I was taught presented people like Thaddeus Stevens as maniacal villains. No doubt, there were plenty of villains within the Radical Republicans and equally doubtless - there were plenty of immoral 'carpetbaggers' who took advantage of the situation for their own ends.

However, much of my 'post-education' reading has taught me that the texts and curriculum from my history education were woefully slanted and revisionist. Stevens, as one example, was, I think - a truly great American and one of the most just men ever to serve in government.
   1267. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4407390)
Today isn't a day for insults, it's a day for those who've spent years railing against Barack Obama's imperial Presidency and arrogant refusal to compromise to talk about how much they admire Margaret Thatcher.


GB wins the page :-)
   1268. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4407392)
While I don't consider Margaret Thatcher to be one of these people, there are some people that improve the world with their passing.

Mass-murdering dictators and serial killers, sure. I have a hard time putting any democratically elected leader of a free country on that list.

I can't think of any leftist politician's death that I'd actively celebrate. There's tons I wouldn't shed a tear, or lose a moments sleep. But celebrate? No.
   1269. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4407398)
Canadian culture is antipathic to American culture.


BS, the most "anti-American" of the english speaking parts are the areas that ate the most [north]american "culturally" speaking- most Anglo-Canadians are more American than Austrians are German.

   1270. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4407401)
Cheerfully saying goodbye to Montana is not really imaginable.


There is the "Velvet divorce" of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
   1271. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4407405)

While I don't consider Margaret Thatcher to be one of these people, there are some people that improve the world with their passing.


such as Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Breitbart...
   1272. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4407406)
IANAL but it has always seemed like a grey area to me, one that the Civil War settled fairly effectively I think.


The legal argument wasn't settled (and no, Morty they never bothered to make a legal argument in 1860) after the war. White vs Texas.

From wiki's summary: the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"

Now having a former Lincoln cabinet member as part of the court is a clue as to how it would see the matter.


   1273. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4407408)
I don't really see why you'd ever object to any state seceding. If this becomes such a shitty country that people want out, you should let them go.
   1274. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4407409)
However, much of my 'post-education' reading has taught me that the texts and curriculum from my history education were woefully slanted and revisionist. Stevens, as one example, was, I think - a truly great American and one of the most just men ever to serve in government.
+1

And he was amazingly pragmatic; he wasn't (like Sumner) a blowhard. He could talk a mean game, but he also knew how to count votes and how to get the best result out of an imperfect political process.

The "extreme" acts RRs were charged with were:

1) enfranchisment
2) proposing land confiscation, which in practice would have been incredibly challenging but at the smallish level they were talking about would have been much more lenient than the US' confiscation of Tory lands after the Revolution, which doesn't seem to bother anybody
3) disfranchisement of Confederate leaders, which again doesn't seem like the craziest idea in the world.
   1275. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4407411)
Celebrating Thatcher's death seems pointless and in poor taste.

The Iron Lady died a long time ago. Today, an old woman trapped in the past was granted relief from the torment of a world she no longer understood.
   1276. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4407412)
Always start dissertation defense with a good threat to ensure you retain the initiative throughout. Intimidating one or two of the examiners from the start allows you to isolate and destroy the more difficult ones.
   1277. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4407413)
I don't really see why you'd ever object to any state seceding. If this becomes such a shitty country that people want out, you should let them go.
democracy depends on accepting--not liking or giving up on complaining about but accepting the reality--that sometimes you lose and yet you keep playing. As Lincoln said, no democracy could ever survive if the losers simply left everytime.

ed to add: more prosaically, you end up with regions wanting to secede the moment their resource (copper or oil or wheat or whatever) jumps in value. A big country should have a range of resources, and be able to subsidize the less-valued ones with the more-valued, knowing that the worm will likely turn again.

and beyond that, secession is a nightmare since it's the ultimate in coercion. The dissenters within the seceding state have to either involuntarily lose their citizenship in their country of birth or move. It's the tyranny of a regional elite over its people who have a minority opinion. And it usually means that sub-regions where the majority opposes secession get forced into secession, so it manages the neat trick of obliterating both individual and local rights. All governments are coercive on one level, but secession is an extreme form of coercion.
   1278. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4407414)
I don't really see why you'd ever object to any state seceding. If this becomes such a shitty country that people want out, you should let them go.

This pre-supposes an awful lot of benefit of the doubt.
   1279. Greg K Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4407422)
BS, the most "anti-American" of the english speaking parts are the areas that ate the most [north]american "culturally" speaking- most Anglo-Canadians are more American than Austrians are German.

It's a bit of a contradictory situation. People always apologize for assuming I'm American once I tell them I'm Canadian...but the truth of it is I've met plenty of North Americans and been entirely unable to tell whether they were American or Canadian. I grew up watching the same movies as Americans, and the same TV shows (mostly, the CBC's The Newsroom was my favourite show in grade 8, but every other show I watched was American)...Canadian popular music is slightly more healthy as a distinct culture, in that Canadian bands are far more well known in Canada than Canadian film-makers...but whatever American youth-folk are listening to, you can be sure Canadian ones are listening to the same stuff.

But for all that "not-American" is a pretty firm part of the Canadian identity. Which isn't to say that Canadians are "anti-American", just that if you ask the average Canadian to define what being Canadian means, he/she will likely list off a bunch of attributes or adjectives that would be almost identical to their response to the question, "what are Americans like?"

I find it an endlessly fascinating aspect of Canadian culture (mostly because I'm very much a part of it all, and I find most things about me-related fascinating). Canadian identity has been forged in opposition to American culture, mostly because it is the giant behemoth next door...if you don't build up inherent defences against it, it will envelop you eventually. But for that same reason I can see Canadian culture being easily subsumed into American culture within a generation or two.
   1280. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4407424)
Yep, because of that comment, I now have him on ignore.

Why so late? It's not like the poster in question has a history of writing things worth reading.
   1281. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4407431)
Can't edit 1272, but it's worth noting that during the nullification crisis South Carolina talked publicly about unilateral secession and Jackson made it clear it would be met with military force.

Jackson isn't my choice for legal scholarship among presidents, but it was basically accepted by everybody that had South Carolina attempted secession Jackson would have acted precisely as he threatened to.
   1282. GregD Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4407439)
Jackson isn't my choice for legal scholarship among presidents, but it was basically accepted by everybody that had South Carolina attempted secession Jackson would have acted precisely as he threatened to.
You're undoubtedly right on what Jackson would have done

In terms of his legal thinking, Jackson probably spoke about his views on the Constitution as voluminously and as clearly as any president ever, with the possible exception of Lincoln. There are other presidents whose views of the Constitution I much prefer, but not many, if any, who thought harder about it and took it more seriously. He was much smarter than we often suppose and a much clearer writer than most 19th century presidents.
   1283. zonk Posted: April 08, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4407440)
Can't edit 1272, but it's worth noting that during the nullification crisis South Carolina talked publicly about unilateral secession and Jackson made it clear it would be met with military force.

Jackson isn't my choice for legal scholarship among presidents, but it was basically accepted by everybody that had South Carolina attempted secession Jackson would have acted precisely as he threatened to.


...to the extent that I believe even Calhoun feared for his safety.

Andrew Jackson encapsulates an awful lot of what was and is both wrong and right about the nation... Does the "United States" survive as a country if the Civil War happens a generation earlier, which it might well have if not for an autocratic leader like Jackson?
   1284. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4407448)
much smarter than we often suppose and a much clearer writer than most 19th century presidents

The latter fact has been obscured by Jackson's appalling spelling (which usually doesn't disrupt his meaning except superficially). He certainly wasn't illiterate, though not highly educated; many self-taught writers spell correctly enough, so I suspect there was some dyslexia at work. This is a man who spelled a certain disputed Northwestern province as "Oragogon."
   1285. Ron J2 Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4407457)
1153 Their biggest complaint was the fact that the federal government wasn't doing more to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. You can find reference to this in any number formal seccession documents.

By the way, the best resource I'm aware of for what the people were saying at the time is Jim Epperson's Causes of the Civil War page.

   1286. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4407458)
democracy depends on accepting--not liking or giving up on complaining about but accepting the reality--that sometimes you lose and yet you keep playing. As Lincoln said, no democracy could ever survive if the losers simply left everytime.

ed to add: more prosaically, you end up with regions wanting to secede the moment their resource (copper or oil or wheat or whatever) jumps in value. A big country should have a range of resources, and be able to subsidize the less-valued ones with the more-valued, knowing that the worm will likely turn again.

and beyond that, secession is a nightmare since it's the ultimate in coercion. The dissenters within the seceding state have to either involuntarily lose their citizenship in their country of birth or move. It's the tyranny of a regional elite over its people who have a minority opinion. And it usually means that sub-regions where the majority opposes secession get forced into secession, so it manages the neat trick of obliterating both individual and local rights. All governments are coercive on one level, but secession is an extreme form of coercion.


Well the costs are such that the losers are not going to leave every time. I don't think a country should be set historically in stone, and forced to keep that geographical limit for ever. I also don't think Democracy is some magic formula that prevents gross injustice.

If the slave states had been 60% of the US in 1861, and the free states wanted to leave, who would you side with? If Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico become 75% Mexican-American, and they don't want to be in the US anymore, would you actually shed blood to keep them?

Why do we have more right to kill people to keep them in the US than we do to compel them to join us? Under the old logic of Imperialism, it makes sense. But under modern logic, if it's wrong to annex Canada by force, it should also be wrong to keep Washington by force.

I personally would not fight to keep any state where the majority want to leave. If they set up a better country, I might move there.
   1287. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4407459)
To appreciate Jackson's attributes, you really have to make an effort to put yourself in certain place and time. It will be enlightening, though, if you do make the effort.
   1288. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4407461)
Why so late? It's not like the poster in question has a history of writing things worth reading.

Good point.
   1289. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4407463)
To appreciate Jackson's attributes, you really have to make an effort to put yourself in certain place and time. It will be enlightening, though, if you do make the effort.

Anyone who responds to an assassination attempt by trying to beat the would-be-assassin to death with his cane is alright by me.
   1290. McCoy Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4407465)
Yep, because of that comment, I now have him on ignore.

Why so late? It's not like the poster in question has a history of writing things worth reading.


Come on now. His belief that naval warships were useless against armored divisions was rather humorous.
   1291. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4407471)
I also like Jackson's defense of Peggy Eaton; it was a long time ago and mores were different, but I like to think that I would have hung out with Jackson and the Eatons in disregard of Mrs. Calhoun. Jon Meacham gives a very interesting account of the whole mess in American Lion, well worth reading, even if he may put too much world-historical significance on Jackson's domestic emotions.
   1292. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4407475)

Why do we have more right to kill people to keep them in the US than we do to compel them to join us?


I posted the reasons I would give above; it's instructive in this regard to read William Seward's speech in Congress on the topic of secession.

I also don't think Democracy is some magic formula that prevents gross injustice.


Gross injustice is, as I mentioned a special case. However, it's also true that in situations of gross injustice, those perpetrating the injustice are rather unlikely to allow a peaceful departure.
   1293. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4407476)
To appreciate Jackson's attributes, you really have to make an effort to put yourself in certain place and time. It will be enlightening, though, if you do make the effort.


Anyone who responds to an assassination attempt by trying to beat the would-be-assassin to death with his cane is alright by me.


In this thread: people defending genocide for political convenience.
   1294. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4407479)
1236. Publius Publicola Posted: April 08, 2013 at 08:39 AM (#4407275)

Good riddance to that #####.


Was this a serious comment, or is there an inside joke I'm missing?
   1295. Delorians Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4407480)
I personally would not fight to keep any state where the majority want to leave.

The bar needs to be a lot higher than a mere majority. If, at any time in our nation's past, a state left the Union when 50.5% of the citizens would have voted in favor, there wouldn't be many states left. Heck, just since 1993, in all but a few of the perpetual swing states, I bet you could have gotten a majority in favor at least once immediately after a presidential election that went not to their liking.
   1296. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4407484)
The bar needs to be a lot higher than a mere majority. If, at any time in our nation's past, a state left the Union when 50.5% of the citizens would have voted in favor, there wouldn't be many states left. Heck, just since 1993, in all but a few of the perpetual swing states, I bet you could have gotten a majority in favor at least once immediately after a presidential election that went not to their liking.

No state would consider it without a large majority, and it would require a lot more than the disagreements we currently have.

But, if we continue to polarize in this country, I don't see why a peaceable separation (at some point) would not be an OK alternative.
   1297. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4407485)
In this thread: people defending genocide for political convenience.

Not defending his policies, esp. in re the Cherokees (that was awful). I'm just saying I can't help but admire his toughness.
   1298. tshipman Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4407487)
Not defending his policies, esp. in re the Cherokees (that was awful). I'm just saying I can't help but admire his toughness.


You said he was "alright by me." Is there some context there that I'm missing?

Andrew Jackson is, in my opinion, the absolute worst president of our history. At least George W., Harding and Pierce never committed genocide.
   1299. BDC Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4407492)
Neither Meacham nor Sean Wilentz (author of another recent book, Andrew Jackson) defend Jackson's Indian policies, but both make the point Morty does: you have to imagine it in context. Hardly any white politician at the time had more enlightened views, and Jackson imagined himself as a sort of paternalist shepherd of Indian tribes. He was wrong about that; he did way more harm than good; you can say, perhaps, that he was trying to do less harm than others wanted to do.
   1300. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4407494)
You said he was "alright by me." Is there some context there that I'm missing?

It's an off the cuff acknowledgment of some admiration, not a whole hearted endorsement of his entire career.

Go back to the recent A-Bomb/fire bombing/war crime thread. Both FDR and Truman authorized worse atrocities.
Page 13 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-29-2014
(16 - 9:06pm, Jul 29)
Last: jobu

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3533 - 9:04pm, Jul 29)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(57 - 8:57pm, Jul 29)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(28 - 8:56pm, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMelky Cabrera smashed a windshield with a homer
(14 - 8:49pm, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(45 - 8:45pm, Jul 29)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(5 - 8:40pm, Jul 29)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(506 - 8:39pm, Jul 29)
Last: JH (in DC)

NewsblogHoward: David Ortiz shaping up to become first steroid era Teflon slugger
(22 - 8:36pm, Jul 29)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogWhich Players Will Be Most Affected by the Hall of Fame’s New Rules?
(6 - 8:35pm, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(19 - 8:23pm, Jul 29)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogKeith Olbermann: The Mystery of the 1953 Topps Set
(4 - 8:17pm, Jul 29)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1009 - 7:45pm, Jul 29)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

Newsblog2014 Prospect Watch | MLB.com: UPDATED
(22 - 7:15pm, Jul 29)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-29-2014
(46 - 7:14pm, Jul 29)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Page rendered in 0.6261 seconds
52 querie(s) executed