World F@cking Champions

Studs Terkel Dies at 96

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

"Studs Terkel turned the voice of average Americans into a font of history."

"The Pulitzer-Prize winning author, television pioneer, theatrical actor, long-time radio host, unrepentant leftie and friend of the little man, died peacefully at his home on the North Side of Chicago this afternoon."

"He was 96."

""He had a very full, eventful and sometimes tempestuous life ," said his son Dan. "It was very satisfactory""

"Studs — calling him "Mr. Terkel" always seemed overly formal — was a character. He liked to wear a red-checked shirt, a rumpled suit and had a stogie jammed in the side of his thick-lipped mouth. He enjoyed a martini well into his 90s."

"Though his dozen books were national best-sellers — Division Street America, and Working and The Good War — Studs was best known to many Chicagoans as an interviewer who hosted a talk show on radio station WFMT from 1952 to 1997."

full article.

Phillies Win The World Series!!!!!!!!!!!

Ronald Radosh Has A Blog!!!

I just found out that historian Ronald Radosh has a blog and it is a very good read. Check it out here.

Why The Debates Are Pointless

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Sherman's March in Myth and Memory

This book looks interesting. From the publisher:

"Legends and myths about Sherman began forming during the March itself, and took more definitive shape in the industrial age in the late-nineteenth century. Sherman's March in Myth and Memory examines the emergence of various myths surrounding one of the most enduring campaigns in the annals of military history. Edward Caudill and Paul Ashdown provide a brief overview of Sherman's life and his March, but their focus is on how these myths came about-such as one description of a "60-mile wide path of destruction"-and how legends about Sherman and his campaign have served a variety of interests."

"Sherman's March in Myth and Memory looks at the general's treatment in the press, among historians, on stage and screen, and in literature, from the time of the March to the present day. The authors show us the many ways in which Sherman has been portrayed in the media and popular culture, and how his devastating March has been stamped into our collective memory."

Who has the Offical Right to Claim Thomas Jefferson?

Josh asked me to write this, but he may be disappointed in the response.

It is a well know fact that both political parties like to reach into the past and pick and choose famous Americans who would support their cause. Republicans call upon Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt; Democrats call on FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and interestingly enough, Thomas Jefferson. But which political party has been more influenced by Thomas Jefferson and may in fact better represent a Jefferson America? The facts may surprise you.

Central to Jeffersonian political ideology is the concept of the "Country critique." First enumerated by Tory and gentry forces in England following the Glorious Revolution, the Country critique served as a opposition to the growing greed and corruption that drove English politics. Simply put, the Country critique was fonded on certain key assumption, resulting in a generalized world view:

1. The key to creating a government that protected the life, liberty, and property of its people was virtue.
2. Virtue was promoted through self-sufficiency; through separating oneself from outside influence that may sway the authenticity of ones vote
3. Those forced to labor under another's will (mainly day laborers and "wage-slaves") lacked the capacity for virtue because their position necessitated dependence on another
4. The key to forming a virtuous citizenry, therefore, was to promote an agricultural society, where one was the master of himself and his family, independent and virtuous.
5. Key modern developments--national debt, patronage, an expansive army, large centralized governments, and overly involved legislation--threatened the virtue of a society
6. Inequality (at least among white men) threatened virtue, but only when it infringed upon one's independence.

The Country Critique failed in England, due to limitations on land, the influence of the First Minister over patronage throughout the country, and by necessary modern developments in the military and economy. However, the Country Critique thrived in colonial America. In fact, the Country critique was a necessary component in identification the tyranny of England (it rapacious military, greedy King, and attempts to make American dependent). Despite the widespread acceptance of the Country ideology in 1776, by 1789 it had spiraled into anarchic democracy and the abuses of demos against the state.

It is necessary to understand that in Jefferson's political ideology--heavily influenced by the Country critique--the virtuous citizenry was supposed to look past their individual needs in favor of the national ones. If bogged down by special interests, the system failed.

In response to the Anglification of American economic forces under Hamilton, it was necessary for Jefferson and Madison to create a grassroots upswell to country the tyranny and forced bifurcation of American society, as offered by Hamilton. It is important to note that any popular democratic ends promoted by Jefferson were not intentional nor long lasting. Jefferson expected to mobilize the people, right the wrongs of Federalism, then take control of the government in more capable hands than the demos. For the most part Jefferson succeeded.

However, several key factors caused the decline of the Jeffersonian political ideology, including:

• The market revolution in the North, which for the first time in American history, produced long lasting and irreversible differences in wealth. The market revolution ended the possibility for egalitarianism and started modern class conflict by destroying traditional deference systems (i.e. the master-journeymen system)
• The necessary reliance on slavery in the South to continue the egalitarianism and Country ideology in the South. When it became necessary for southerners to define their independence and virtue on the dependence and slavery of another group, they doomed themselves to failure. Yes, the South was more egalitarian for whites, but what would happen if and when the slaves were freed?
• The War of 1812 reduced the success of Jeffersonian policy. It enlarged the debt, promoted a standing army, and forced American politicians to reasonably look at the size and object of government. After 1800, the party system was inherently Jeffersonian, however, the modern consequences of the War of 1812 (debt, increased government, and a national bank) made it possible for Jeffersonians to purse the Country ideology from outside an agrarian frame

Therefore, we come to meat of the argument. Key factors are necessary to promote a Jeffersonian world view: (1) widespread egalitarianism, (2) availability of land and self-sufficiency of the people, and (3) an active local political sphere in place of a large, involved national government. Thus, we turn to the modern goals of Republicans and Democrats

Republicans promote:

• Reducing the national debt
• Reducing the size of government
• Fair tax structure
• The autonomy of the individual from the government
  
• Free markets

Democrats promote:

• Egalitarian social policy
• Egalitarian fiscal policy
• Increasing the size of government
• A greater role for the government in people's lives
• Controlled markets

Thus, by these standards alone, one could claim that the Republicans accurately recreate the nature of Jeffersonian political theory. However, to make this point would be to miss the argument and goal of Jefferson, the man, and the Country thinker.

Although i do not believe that Jefferson would support expanding the electorate or property redistribution, i do believe Jefferson would support the "independence" of American from outside forces. Thus, if necessary to create an egalitarian state, Jefferson might support an Obama-ish plan to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, providing those in the middle with increased self-sufficiency and limiting their dependence on those above. Currently, the entire American social structure is not conducive to Jeffersonian thought. By default, American is an in-virtuous nation. 70% of America's revenue comes from the top 10% of tax payers. In Jefferson's view, this is as bad as the specter of absolutism when Walpole controlled the ear of the King and Parliament through patronage. What, after all, is the modern lobby system but patronage.

Before i discuss Jeffersonian thought for the 21st century, i feel it is necessary to determine which party has more of a claim to Jefferson--the Democrats or Republicans? I believe the answer is both and neither. The Republicans offer Jeffersonian policy, but not his social structure based on virtue. Democrats offer Jeffersonians egalitarianism, but without the necessary policy components to avoid Socialist and Marxist leanings. Thus, neither deserve to defame the name of Jefferson. The Republicans (more accurately, the Neo-Cons) should claim the oligarchical Hamilton; the Democrats the Socialist Eugene Debbs. Neither deserve the endorsement of Jefferson, nor do they have a right to claim it.

In conclusion, i offer at stark contrast to my earlier, more conservative, Hamiltonian and Smithian economic rants, a seemingly opposite view of how best to recreate Jeffersonian society. I know this is scary, but take it for what its worth--the nostalgia of a history student who wishes with all his being to be a virtuous, self-sufficient land owner, mast of my own destiny, and important for the future of our young republic. Here is my idea:

1. We must start with a near socialistic/Marxian property redistribution. As our founding fathers before us, we must redistribute wealth to guarantee an equal opportunity to own land and share wealth. Look at the distribution of Loyalist and Feme soli following the American Revolution. Historian John Murrin suggests that it was the largest single act of leveling and property redistribution before Lenin and the Communists took control of Russia. If we are in fact committed to virtue, then social and economic inequality are threats to the virtue of every individual. Independence comes from self-sufficiency, which comes from egalitarianism
2. We must limit the electorate to people who own their own land, or are on the way to owning their own land. Anyone who rents or is dependent on the will of another (including the government) lacks the capacity for virtue, and must therefore, be excluded from the vote. Landowners and independent voters are free from the constraints of special interests and influence from outside forces
3. Lobbying, pork barrel spending, and congressional earmarks would end. Unequivocally!
4. The size of the military would be decreased
5. Government services and bureaucracies would be slashed. Anything deemed necessary would be relegated to the state's unless specifically noted in the Constitution or Judicial review.
6. The tax structure would be revised and reversed. As an independent landowner and virtuous citizen, it is your responsibility to actively participate in local politics. Only in local politics should regional and special interests come into play. As one moves further away from local, community politics, so to does the effect of special interests groups and tax money. Under Jeffersonian thought, the local government should receive a maximum amount of tax dollars, followed by the state, and national government.
7. The national debt would be decreased, until it was paid-off. Following the absolution of the national debt, any deficit spending would be discouraged, except in the case of extreme need and unexpected circumstances
8. American would end its support of foreign nations, but would become a bastion of free trade and free markets
9. Infrastructure would be increased and maximized
10. Tolerance, equality, and freedom would be unequivocally extended to all people. Every person has the latent capacity for republican virtue, but only those willing to excuse themselves from dependence or own land have accepted that latent possibility for virtue

This, i believe, is the most accurate platform for Jeffersonian policy in the 21st century.

This may be crazy, an uncharacteristic, but in the name of Jefferson, i would support property redistribution and leveling. However, to produce my idealized Jeffersonian utopia, everyone would have to understand the importance of the Country ideology, strive to be a virtuous citizen, and look towards a common good above self-interest.

I long for the past, yet have only the future to comfort me.

Fin.

Obama as Jimmy Carter

During this election cycle I have seen this election be compared to just about very previous presidential election like 1968, 1960, 1964, and more recently 1932. I have tried to resist make an such comparisons myself, but I have wasted much time reading articles making such comparisons. Tonight I found a comparison that I haven't thought of before. Historian Mark Moyar (Moyar's Triumph Forsaken is a great revision of the Vietnam War and I highly recommend it.) has made the argument that an Obama presidency may look very similar to Jimmy Carter's presidency. Moyar wrote:

"A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character."

"His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008."

This was interesting:

"Carter also threw out his professed hawkishness on foreign policy. Declaring America liberated from its “inordinate fear of Communism,” he sought better relations with the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. He was much less nice to America’s allies, withdrawing support from those who did not accept his self-righteous demands for human-rights reforms. Friendly regimes in Nicaragua and Iran fell to hostile tyrants."

Moyar concluded:

"Before casting a vote for Obama, Americans must consider the likelihood that he will follow the path of Jimmy Carter — that he will wreck the fragile economy by reneging on promises to cut taxes and spending, that he will be tough on America’s allies and soft on its enemies. The odds of Obama staying true to his current rhetoric are so poor that not even the boldest gambler should bet on it."

full article.

Charles Kesler on "The Audacity of Barack Obama"

This is from the Claremont Review of Books and Kesler wrote:

"Any politician who has taken on Bill and Hillary Clinton's national political machine and won should not be underestimated. Yet Republicans as well as many Democrats persist in underrating Barack Obama's electoral talents and, above all, his soaring political ambition."

"His writerly mind, professorial bearing, and effortless self-control make it difficult to take his measure as a politician. He can seem cool, detached, unusually introspective. As a wag at the Financial Times put it, if John McCain's life story is the stuff of Hollywood movies, Obama's is like an off-Broadway play—it lacks action but is full of internal monologues. Raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, his father a Kenyan, his mother a sweet Midwestern atheist, Obama as a young man thought himself something of an outsider wherever he went. Smart and popular, he seemed to prefer to maintain his emotional distance, partly because he was confused about his own identity (as he explains in Dreams from My Father, the autobiography he published at age 33), and partly because he feared being trapped in places that were too small for his talents."

"Eager to find himself by finding a community to which he could belong, he was struck, nonetheless, by the flaws or limits of every race, culture, and country he encountered. Unlike other intelligent human beings who have made the same discovery, Obama did not lower his expectations but decided that, just as he could and did choose to refashion his own identity, communities could do the same, with a little help. He spent three years as a community organizer in Chicago, but was disillusioned with the results. Eventually he found in politics, and especially in political oratory, the path he was seeking: the way to redeem the sins of an existing community by leading it to a vision of its future, better self; and to introduce himself, proudly biracial, multicultural, and progressive, as living proof that the divisions and disappointments of the past can be overcome, if never quite left behind."

On Obama's disgust for bipartisanship:

"Thus the commentators who interpret Obama as a new kind of post-partisan political figure get it exactly wrong. It's true that he wants to stop "arguing about the same ole stuff," as he told Planned Parenthood; he wants to move beyond the decades-long debate between liberalism and conservatism. Bill Clinton wished for the same thing in 1992, as did George W. Bush in 2000. The 42nd and 43rd presidents had doctrines that they hoped would precipitate this magic synthesis—the Third Way, and compassionate conservatism, respectively. What's interesting, as political scientist James W. Ceaser noted in these pages ("What a Long, Strange Race It's Been," Spring 2008), is that Obama does not feel the need for such a doctrine. Nor does John McCain. The 2008 race is taking place squarely within the familiar ideological framework of liberalism and conservatism, but with McCain promising some maverick departures from the norm (while still accepting the norm), and Obama talking up hope and the need for change. The change needed, however, is for nothing less than a full-blown electoral earthquake that will permanently shatter the 50-50 America of the past four presidential elections. He thinks liberals can get beyond the old debate by finally winning it."

On Obama, Abraham Lincoln, and partisan politics:

"Thus Obama compares the new majority he seeks to build to the majority party that Lincoln helped to create. He tries to inspire Democrats by appealing to the founder of the generations-long, post-bellum Republican majority. This is partisan ambition of a high order, masquerading as high-toned bipartisanship or post-partisanship: Obama speaks as though Lincoln were trying to overcome the country's divisions by calling for unity, for cooperation in the spirit of national renewal. In fact, Lincoln's point was that the Union would "become all one thing, or all the other." It would become either all free, or all slave. Lincoln's road to unity ran through division, through forcing the country to choose. Obama's point is similar, despite his soothing language: our divisions will be healed once the country is safely in the hands of a new liberal, Democratic majority."

Kesler concluded:

"Sometimes it helps to take the long view. Audacity is a curious word with two meanings, which reflect a genuine moral ambiguity. It means both boldness, daring, confidence—and reckless daring, rashness, foolhardiness. It can be a good or a bad thing, a virtue or a vice. Hope, by contrast, is a passion; in the language of the medieval schools, hope aims at a future, arduous, and possible good. It doesn't always attain that good, however. There is also hope as a theological virtue, but presumably Obama doesn't mean to offer eternal happiness to his followers. His vision is of earthly happiness, wholeness, and justice. As he explained to Americans in 2004, in his debut at the Democratic National Convention, his name, Barack, means "blessed.""

full article.

Dewey Defeats Truman...Is What I'm Praying For

As election day nears, I have come to terms with an Obama victory, but I am praying for a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment. I know this is a long shot, but I can still dream.

New Jersey's Civil War: "Brave Volunteers of New Jersey"

After the surrender of Fort Sumter, which ushered in the Civil War, the martial spirit swept the North and New Jersey was no different than the other northern states. Young men from New Jersey rushed to recruitment offices where they joined the ranks of the state's volunteer regiments. This song, "Brave Volunteers of New Jersey," reflected the attitudes and euphoria that were exhibited in the first months of the war.

• 
  
  "The brave volunteers of New Jersey, / All patriots, noble and true;/ Aroused at the call of our country,/ We'll stand by the red, white, and blue,/ To tyrants we'll never give in;/ Rebellion should have its just due,/ For liberty union and liberty live, in/ The hearts of true Jersey Blue."



• 
  
  "Bold treason, uprising, is striving/ To pluck the bright stars from the blue;/ And freedom's last hope is surviving/ Maintained by the swords of the true--/ Shall liberty languish and perish,/ Because we are not brave, or true?/ Oh no! in our bosoms we cherish/ The fame of the rue Jersey Blue."



• 
  
  "Our fathers of old, long before use/ Won, and left a proud name for their sons,/ Their spirits are hovering o'er us,/ Their blood in their children still runs--/ Oh long may we share in, and merit/ The glory to patriots due;/ We'll maintain the proud name we inherit/ Long, long live the true Jersey Blue."



• 
  
  "No party nor clan shall divide us,/ The Union we'll place above all--/ The laws of our land must still guide use/ United we'll stand, or we'll fall--/ And long may the blessings of heaven/ Descend on the brave and the true;/ Three cheers for the union be given,/ And three for the true Jersey Blue."

Good Post on "Bob Roggio's Twisted Logic"

This is from the blog Elephant Owners and I think it is a good critique of the substance of Roggio's policy proposals which are, well, not very intelligent at all. From the post:

"Let’s point out to Roggio that Jim Geralch and the Republicans do not set the agenda in Congress anymore. Nancy Pelosi does. Our most immediate problem is energy and the Democrats have done absolutely nothing to address the problem. The Congress has been out of sessions for months and it is very unlikely that they will return to session before the election. If Bob Roggio was to blame someone for inaction, his finger should be pointing at Nancy Pelosi."

Some of this post demonstrates the nationalization of local politics.

full post.

Clarence Thomas on "How to Read the Constitution"

This is from today's Wall Street Journal.

"When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country," we heard his words with ears that had been conditioned to receive this message and hearts that did not resist it. We heard it surrounded by fellow citizens who had known lives of sacrifice and hardships from war, the Great Depression and segregation. All around us seemed to ingest and echo his sentiment and his words. Our country and our principles were more important than our individual wants, and by discharging our responsibilities as citizens, neighbors, and students we would make our country better. It all made sense."

"Today, we live in a far different environment. My generation, the self-indulgent "me" generation, has had a profound effect on much around us. Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice -- unless it is a justification for more taxation and transfers of wealth to others. Nor do we hear from leaders or politicians the message that there is something larger and more important than the government providing for all of our needs and wants -- large and small. The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you."

"This brings to mind the question that seems more explicit in informed discussions about political theory and implicit in shallow political speeches. What is the role of government? Or more to the point, what is the role of our government? Interestingly, this is the question that our framers answered more than 200 years ago when they declared our independence and adopted our written Constitution. They established the form of government that they trusted would be best to preserve liberty and allow a free people to prosper. And that it has done for over two centuries. Of course, there were major flaws such as the issue of slavery, which would eventually lead to a civil war and casualties of fellow citizens that dwarf those of any of the wars that our country has since been involved in."

"Though we have amended the Constitution, we have not changed its structure or the core of the document itself. So what has changed? That is the question that I have asked myself and my law clerks countless times during my 17 years on the court."

Thomas concluded:

"Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial."

Full article.

All Politics Is Not Local: The Nationalization of Local Politics and the Decline of True Representation, Part 1

Tip O’Neill once uttered the phrase “all politics is local,” meaning that what concerns people the most when voting for representatives and leaders are, generally, local issues. How is politician X going to represent my district? What will candidate Y to about the district’s sky-rocketing property tax? Will politician Z help to create jobs in our community? These were some concerns that used to hold sway over how voters chose their representatives. People cared deeply about the fate of their communities and politicians and candidates for local office knew this and campaigned on local issues.

Things have changed. Now the political landscape is so polarized that local issues to don’t even matter anymore. It’s not so much the people that are caught up in a ridiculous partisan struggle for the heart of American politics. (I do, however, know plenty of people that are partisan voters and will vote for one party and hold the opinion that the party they support is as infallible as the pope.) Politicians, those who are in office and those are running for office, are to blame for the nationalization of local politics. They are the ones that are speaking to issues that, though they are important, are not at the center of what is best for each district.

The first culprit I will examine is Democrat Bob Roggio who is running against Representative Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania’s Sixth District. Roggio, a political lightweight and newcomer, has been running one of the most incompetent, un-intelligent, deceitful campaigns in the Delaware Valley. Roggio, like many of his ilk, is waging his campaign against George W. Bush and not his actual opponent. The failed presidency of Bush has given Roggio the luxury of running against Gerlach by tying him to W.’s disastrous presidency. Like many other Democrats, Roggio is not being forced to stand for anything too particular, which is evidenced by his simplistic policy proposals that just mirror general Democratic talking points. Strike that. His policy proposals are merely dumbed-down version of usual Democratic policies.

Roggio, on his website, does not speak to issues that matter to the people of Pennsylvania’s Sixth district. He has resorted to the bankrupt and overplayed tactic of connecting the president’s name to his opponents name via the /.

Here’s some examples from Roggio’s website: He claimed that once he is in office he will vote “for tax cuts for middle class families and by repealing the Bush/Gerlach tax breaks for people making over $250,000 a year.” (I know this statement is very deceitful and displays a simplistic political mind, but I am not going to deal with the substance of this statement in this post.) On fixing the banking crisis: “Under the failed policies of George Bush and Jim Gerlach, the financial markets have gone without enforced regulations at the expense of the American taxpayer.” (Once again, the substance displays a lacking of understanding the economy, but that is not my focus here.) Again on taxes: "Bush and Gerlach have consistently provided tax cuts for millionaires..."

By running for a local office using national issues, Roggio is denying his constituency, if elected, of someone who cares for and will fight for his district. I’m sure that crying wolf…sorry…crying Bush will rally the support of many die hard Democrats and disillusioned Republicans, but it does nothing to rational independent voters who care deeply for their communities. By running against Bush (which is a disease that plagues the entire Democratic Party) Roggio is, in effect, insulting the voters of his district. He is sending the message to them that their concerns are not important enough for him to place them at the center of his policy proposals. With any luck and some wishful thinking the voters of this district will wake up and repudiate this type of politics and send Roggio back to his rather large home.

In the next post on this topic I will take a look at John Adler.

General Barksdale's Charge at Gettyburg

This Don Troiani Print is titled "Barksdale's Charge" and I decided to post it, and others like it in the future, because many academic historians, led by Gary Gallagher, detest these prints. Perhaps they think that they are not PC or that they glorify war and the Lost cause. (See Mark Grimsley's post)

The focus of this print is General William Barksdale's charge on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Barksdale, a Mississippian, had been a fiery general and fighter in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. He had been anxious join into battle at Gettysburg and when he received his order to commence his portion of the fight he is reported to have said: "Attention, Mississippians! Battalions forward! Dress to the colors and Forward to the foe! Onward, Brave Mississippians! For Glory!"

Barksdale's Mississippians joined the fight against Union forces and and experienced success, but the cost of that success was Barkdal's life. This is historian David J. Eicher's account of the results of the battle:

• "As Barkdale's men surged eastward, northeast of Trotsle's Farm, it was supported by the brigade of Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox. The charge of the Mississippians was a success. In the aftermath of the charge, however, Barksdale was spotted lying on the ground, and a private, Joseph C. Lloyd of the 13th Mississippi Infantry, gave the fallen general a drink of water from his canteen. Union Brig. Gen. Joseph B. Carr had first given an order to fire at a Confederate officer mounted on a white horse, believed to be Barksdale. Struck above the left knee, Barksdale nonetheless continued the fight. He was then hit in the left foot by a cannon shot. Still, Barksdale continued on. Only the third wound, a Minie bullet delivered to the chest, knocked him from his horse onto the ground, where he was found by Lloyd. The young private was shaken when the water Barksdale drank came oozing out of his chest. In the oncoming milky twilight, the general was captured and taken to the Jacob Hummelbaugh House in the rear, where he died the following day." (See Eicher, The Longest Night, pp. 533-534)
  

A New Graphic Novel About Confederate General Patrick Cleburne

The Phillies Are Going To The World Series

Good Blog on New Jersey History

Anyone interested in New Jersey history should check out Rediscovering the Grove.

Obama = Income Redistribution

I found this post on powerlineblog.com in which its author, Scott Johnson, argued that Obama's economic policies are nothing more than income redistribution. Johnson wrote:

"When Barack Obama responded to the Ohio plumber who didn't want his taxes raised that Obama wanted to "spread the wealth around," I wanted to tell him to spread his own wealth around. It was in any event a rare moment of candor on the part of Senator Obama."

"Obama all but told the plumber that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. The encounter played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes."

"Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, It doesn't represent much in the way of change. According to the most recent (2006) data released by the IRS, the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes (3 percent of all income taxes paid)."

"The personal income tax, the federal government's main source of revenue, is collected overwhelmingly from a relative handful of Americans. The large majority of all Americans pay little or no income tax."

"Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," warns Aristotle."

"The founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others therefore made it a "first object of government" to protect personal property from unjust confiscation. Numerous provisions were included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens."

Full post.

New Books on Andrew Jackson

Here are some some new books on Andrew Jackson and his times and both look interesting.

John Meacham's American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House will be released on November 11. Here's a description from Amazon.com:

"Andrew Jackson, his intimate circle of friends, and his tumultuous times are at the heart of this remarkable book about the man who rose from nothing to create the modern presidency. Beloved and hated, venerated and reviled, Andrew Jackson was an orphan who fought his way to the pinnacle of power, bending the nation to his will in the cause of democracy. Jackson’s election in 1828 ushered in a new and lasting era in which the people, not distant elites, were the guiding force in American politics. Democracy made its stand in the Jackson years, and he gave voice to the hopes and the fears of a restless, changing nation facing challenging times at home and threats abroad. To tell the saga of Jackson’s presidency, acclaimed author Jon Meacham goes inside the Jackson White House. Drawing on newly discovered family letters and papers, he details the human drama–the family, the women, and the inner circle of advisers–that shaped Jackson’s private world through years of storm and victory."

"One of our most significant yet dimly recalled presidents, Jackson was a battle-hardened warrior, the founder of the Democratic Party, and the architect of the presidency as we know it. His story is one of violence, sex, courage, and tragedy. With his powerful persona, his evident bravery, and his mystical connection to the people, Jackson moved the White House from the periphery of government to the center of national action, articulating a vision of change that challenged entrenched interests to heed the popular will–or face his formidable wrath. The greatest of the presidents who have followed Jackson in the White House–from Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to FDR to Truman–have found inspiration in his example, and virtue in his vision."

"Jackson was the most contradictory of men. The architect of the removal of Indians from their native lands, he was warmly sentimental and risked everything to give more power to ordinary citizens. He was, in short, a lot like his country: alternately kind and vicious, brilliant and blind; and a man who fought a lifelong war to keep the republic safe–no matter what it took."

"Jon Meacham in American Lion has delivered the definitive human portrait of a pivotal president who forever changed the American presidency–and America itself."

Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson by David S. Reynolds. From the publisher:

"America experienced unprecedented expansion and turmoil in the years between 1815 and 1848. In Waking Giant, Bancroft Prize-winning historian and literary critic David S. Reynolds illuminates the period's exciting political story as well as the fascinating social and cultural movements that influenced it. He casts fresh light on Andrew Jackson, who redefined the presidency, along with John Quincy Adams and James K. Polk, who expanded the nation's territory and strengthened its position internationally."

"Waking Giant captures the turbulence of a democracy caught in the throes of the controversy over slavery, the rise of capitalism, and the birth of urbanization. Reynolds reveals unknown dimensions of the Second Great Awakening with its sects, cults, and self-styled prophets. He brings to life the reformers, abolitionists, and temperance advocates who struggled to correct America's worst social ills. He uncovers the political roots of some of America's greatest authors and artists, from Ralph Waldo Emerson and Edgar Allan Poe to Thomas Cole and Asher B. Durand, and he reveals the shocking phenomena that marked the age: bloody duels and violent mobs, P. T. Barnum's freaks and all-seeing mesmerists, polygamous prophets and wealthy prostitutes, table-lifting spiritualists and rabble-rousing feminists. All were crucial to the political and social ferment that led to the Civil War."

Hamilton's Curse

Thomas DiLorenzo's forth coming book On Alexander Hamilton looks like it could be an interesting read. In a recent article titled "What Hamilton Has Wrought" DiLorenzo wrote:

"The current economic crisis is the inevitable consequence of what I call Hamilton’s Curse in my new book of that name. It is the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and his political, economic, and constitutional philosophy. As George Will once wrote, Americans are fond of quoting Jefferson, but we live in Hamilton’s country."

"The great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the purpose of government, which animates American politics to this day, was very much about economic policy. Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system – the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from – to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital."

"Jefferson and his followers opposed him every step of the way because they understood that Hamilton’s agenda was totally destructive of liberty. And unlike Hamilton, they took Adam Smith’s warnings against economic interventionism seriously."

"Hamilton complained to George Washington that "we need a government of more energy" and expressed disgust over "an excessive concern for liberty in public men" like Jefferson. Hamilton "had perhaps the highest respect for government of any important American political thinker who ever lived," wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter."

"Hamilton and his political compatriots, the Federalists, understood that a mercantilist empire is a very bad thing if you are on the paying end, as the colonists were. But if you are on the receiving end, that’s altogether different. It’s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks would say."

"Hamilton was neither the inventor of capitalism in America nor "the prophet of the capitalist revolution in America," as biographer Ron Chernow ludicrously asserts. He was the instigator of "crony capitalism," or government primarily for the benefit of the well-connected business class. Far from advocating capitalism, Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism" according to the great late nineteenth century sociologist William Graham Sumner."

Full article.

Happy Columbus Day!!....Christopher Columbus Was A Horrible Human Being

I thought that this would be an appropriate post for Columbus Day. In "Examining the Reputation of Columbus" Jack Weatherford wrote:

"Christopher Columbus' reputation has not survived the scrutiny of history, and today we know that he was no more the discoverer of America than Pocahontas was the discoverer of Great Britain. Native Americans had built great civilizations with many millions of people long before Columbus wandered lost into the Caribbean."

"Columbus' voyage has even less meaning for North Americans than for South Americans because Columbus never set foot on our continent, nor did he open it to European trade. Scandinavian Vikings already had settlements here in the eleventh century, and British fisherman probably fished the shores of Canada for decades before Columbus. The first European explorer to thoroughly document his visit to North America was the Italian explorer Giovanni Caboto, who sailed for England's King Henry VII and became known by his anglicized name, John Cabot. Caboto arrived in 1497 and claimed North America for the English sovereign while Columbus was still searching for India in the Caribbean. After three voyages to America and more than a decade of study, Columbus still believed that Cuba was a part of Asia, South America was only an island, and the coast of Central America was near the Ganges River."

"Unable to celebrate Columbus' exploration as a great discovery, some apologists now want to commemorate it as a great "cultural encounter." Under this interpretation, Columbus becomes a sensitive genius thinking beyond his time in the passionate pursuit of knowledge and understanding. The historical record refutes this, too."

"Contrary to popular legend, Columbus did not prove that the world was round; educated people had known that for centuries. The Egyptian-Greek scientist Erastosthenes, working for Alexandria and Aswan, already had measured the circumference and diameter of the world in the third century B.C. Arab scientists had developed a whole discipline of geography and measurement, and in the tenth century A.D., Al Maqdisi described the earth with 360 degrees of longitude and 180 degrees of latitude. The Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai still has an icon -- painted 500 years before Columbus -- which shows Jesus ruling over a spherical earth. Nevertheless, Americans have embroidered many such legends around Columbus, and he has become part of a secular mythology for schoolchildren. Autumn would hardly be complete in U.S. elementary schools without construction-paper replicas of the three ships that Columbus sailed to America, or without drawings of Queen Isabella pawning her jewels to finance Columbus' trip."

"This myth of the pawned jewels obscures the true and more sinister story of how Columbus financed his trip. The Spanish monarch invested in his excursion, but only on the condition that Columbus would repay this investment with profit by bringing back gold, spices, and other tribute from Asia. This pressing need to repay his debt underlies the frantic tone of Columbus' diaries as he raced from one Caribbean island to the next, stealing anything of value."

"After he failed to contact the emperor of China, the traders of India, or the merchants of Japan, Columbus decided to pay for his voyage in the one important commodity he had found in ample supply -- human lives. He seized 1,200 Taino Indians from the island of Hispaniola, crammed as many onto his ships as would fit, and sent them to Spain, where they were paraded naked through the streets of Seville and sold as slaves in 1495. Columbus tore children from their parents, husbands from wives. On board Columbus' slave ships, hundreds died; the sailors tossed the Indian bodies into the Atlantic. "

"Because Columbus captured more Indian slaves than he could transport to Spain in his small ships, he put them to work in mines and plantations which he, his family, and followers created throughout the Caribbean. His marauding band hunted Indians for sport and profit -- beating, raping, torturing, killing, and then using the Indian bodies as food for their hunting dogs. Within four years of Columbus' arrival on Hispaniola, his men had killed or exported one-third of the original Indian population of 300,000."

"This was the great cultural encounter initiated by Christopher Columbus. This is the event celebrated each year on Columbus Day. The United States honors only two men with federal holidays bearing their names. In January we commemorate the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr., who struggled to lift the blinders of racial prejudice and to cut the remaining bonds of slavery in America. In October, we honor Christopher Columbus, who opened the Atlantic slave trade and launched one of the greatest waves of genocide known in history."

Also check out "Christopher Columbus: The Untold Story."

Et Tu, Bush?

What William F. Buckley helped to found and Barry Goldwater strengthened and Ronald Reagan revolutionized is now in danger of completely collapsing. The conservative movement is in definitely in peril, but not from angry hoards of barbarians ready to storm the gates. No, not in the least. The figure at the center of the movement’s downfall is from within; George W. Bush. Bush, and not a popular outcry for liberalism, is bringing the end of conservative dominance in our national politics. Eight years of incompetence has done more to take down conservatism then the Democrats have done over the past eight years. Lets us count the ways in which W has doomed (at least temporarily) the conservative movement.

George W. Bush: The Ugly Liberal

First of all, I hesitate to label Bush a conservative. Yes, Bush is conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I concede that point. Now, on the other hand there is his record as president. Bush has overseen the largest growth in the federal government that this nation has experienced in years. Not to mention the sickening expanse of executive authority. For example, take the Patriot Act, which Congress passed, but Bush signed it into law. He could have vetoed it, but chose not to stop it. He has also been the prime beneficiary of that atrocious act. How has it been used by Bush and his administration? Well, to curtail some of the civil liberties of Americans. I’m not saying the United States under Bush is on par with Stalinist Russia, but it is not what we should expect from an American president. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be in defense of personal liberties and against big government? Mr. Bush seems to be pro-big government and anti-personal liberties.

Second, we can look at federal spending under Bush. When one looks at the massive increase in federal spending under W, one comes away asking; “are you sure he’s a conservative?” Well, if he is one, then I seriously should think about calling myself something other than conservative. I guess “compassionate conservative” is just code for “big spending liberal.” In terms of federal spending, Bush makes Bill Clinton look like a conservative. Writing about W’s spending, Mark Brandly of the Ludwig von Mises Institute stated: “In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%...For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%, and under Bush I federal spending increased 23% in four years. In the 2000 election, Bush II promised to shovel money into all sorts of programs — and he's kept that promise.” According to this graph non-defense spending under Bush is the highest it has been since the early 1970s.

George W. Bush is responsible for the rise of Barack Obama.

Despite Barack Obama’s charisma and undeniable oratorical skills, he would not be on the verge of being elected United States President if George W. Bush had not been a colossal f@#k up. Barack Obama leads in the most recent polls 49% over John McCain’s 43%. (This 6 point lead is mainly due to the financial crisis and the false perception that Democrats are better on economic issues. One can argue, as I am here, that a Democrat in Republican’s clothing has been in the White House during this financial crisis. Not to mention the Democratic controlled congress also oversaw this catastrophe, but I digress) However, for most of the summer the polls have been fairly tight and McCain has had the lead for a few weeks in September. Obama, despite the damage that Bush has done for conservatives, has not been able to run away in the polls and it is not because of his race, but his politics. Obama may become our next President and it is not because he has promised change (the change he is offering actually came to the nation in 2006 and what has that done for us?) Imagine, if you will, what the polls may look like today if Bush had stayed true conservatism and showed any signs of competence. So, if Obama is elected to the presidency, then Democrats should sincerely thank W. And Republicans should blame Bush.

George W. Bush’s presidency has wasted John McCain’s candidacy and squandered the legacy of the Republican Revolution of 1994.

This is the flip side of the rise of Obama. John McCain has the potential to be Ronald Reagan, but thanks to President Bush he will mostly likely be another Barry Goldwater. I’m not saying that McCain would be the greatest president that this nation will has seen and will ever see. However, I do think that McCain could have been a very good president. (McCain could still win the election, but I have already conceded victory to Obama.) Thanks to the decidedly non-conservative policies and general incompetence of George W. Bush, we have been deprived of a more consistently conservative leader like McCain. McCain could have served as conservative check on Congress, which after November 4 will have an overwhelming Democratic majority.

Beginning in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” Republicans held control over congress for twelve years. During the first six of those twelve years these conservative Republicans served as an effective check on the Clinton administration. The legacy of the first half of Republican rule was the balanced budget. (Bill Clinton and his cronies and apologists like to argue that Clinton balanced the budget, but that is lie.) The balanced budget led to a record federal surplus that was then, in turn, spent by “Big Spender” Bush. The balanced budget didn’t go far enough. As Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute wrote in 1998: “We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?” Imagine if Bush had taken the next logical step and cut the federal budget instead of spending and spending and more spending. And imagine if we had a true conservative in the White House who inherited that balanced budget and the surplus.

There is a lot more than can be said on this subject, much more than a blog will allow. Bush has ruined conservatism, but we conservatives, including myself, share a small part of the blame for this eight-year mess. We helped to elect him twice. We made the bed and we are now going to be forced to sleep in that bed. As much as I fear that McCain will suffer the same fate as Goldwater, I would welcome the same results as that loss. Goldwater’s loss in 1964 helped to revitalize and fire up the movement that helped to bring about a thirty-year shift in American politics. Who will lead the next conservative revolution? Sarah Palin? Bobby Jindal? I don’t know, but I do believe someone will lead us out of the wilderness and back to the Promised Land.

Over-Regulation Will Not Fix The Financial Crisis

I came across this on the New Republic's website. Alvaro Vargas Llosa argued that de-regulation was not the cause of the financial crisis and over-regulation is not the answer. Llosa wrote:

"As was the case with the 1929 crash that ushered in the Great Depression, the current financial meltdown is giving rise to myths that will influence public policy for decades to come. It is imperative that those myths be debunked before the next U.S. administration starts to make important decisions, followed by many other countries. By far the most dangerous myth is that deregulation is the root cause of the problem."

"Yes, Wall Street firms were greedy, irresponsible and, in many cases, downright stupid. But those are fairly constant features in any society and there is no reason to believe that investment bankers were any more greedy, irresponsible and stupid in 2007 and 2008 than, say, five or 10 years earlier."

"As many authoritative economists are desperately trying to explain amid all the confusion, the culprit was a system geared toward loaning money to people who were not in a position to pay it back. Two policies underpinned that system: easy money by the Federal Reserve and the government-induced lowering of standards for approving loan requests."

Full article.

The Second Presidential Debate

James Taranto on The 'Fact Checking' Fad

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto argued:

"2008 is the year in which "fact checking" of political ads and statements became a full-blown journalistic fad. May it soon go the way of streaking and Mexican jumping beans."

"The "fact check" is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four "Pinocchios," just like movie reviewers giving out stars."

"Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican)."

Full editorial.

Common Place Released Its October Issue

Common-Place has released its October issue, which is devoted entirely to politics. There are some great articles...so check it out.

Economics, ORLY?

It is not the government's responsibility to create jobs. It is not the responsibility of the private sector to create jobs. Jobs are a result of a growing economy and expanding wealth. It is the responsibility of the government to produce an environment (without extended and over active interest) conducive to promote the growth of the economy.

Thus, let us address the common liberal claim: Republicans and Conservatives, alike, give subsidies to companies who ship jobs over seas.

Lets break this down into parts: (1) creating jobs, (2) out sourcing, and (3) subsidies.

How are jobs created? Jobs are created when supply and demand allow jobs to be created--mainly when demand exceeds supply. Thus, labor, a variable resource, is increased to help increase the supply of a given product. It is not economically viable to hire more workers when the economy is bad. It is not economically viable to hire labor when one's products are not in demand. It is not economically viable to hire more labor when the necessary labor is already available.

A company must have the resources to expand its labor force. When a company is taxed, it limits the available resources, limiting a companies ability to hire labor, open factories, buy supplies, etc. Taxing corporations limits available resources. It is said that companies don't pay taxes, this is true, they merely pass on the taxes to the consumer. However, taxation does limit resources, an important fact for later.

Out sourcing? Companies out source because it is cheaper to produce a given product outside of the country than inside. What makes it difficult for companies to produce in America? Taxes. Labor is a variable resource, but it is equivalent regardless of location. A manual worker in Mexico is financially equivalent to a worker in America--but the cost is cheaper. However, managerial and technical crafts are not as equally transferable, thus, many American companies shipped its managerial staff to train cheaper labor, and then get down sized. Out sourcing is a natural capitalist response to cut costs and produce a profit. People are not out sourced out of fairness, dislike, or disdain. It is a matter of numbers. This will be discussed later.

Subsidies are as old as manufacturing itself. It has been proved that subsidies and incentives are better at getting companies to reform its methods than punitive taxation. Would a company be more likely to produce an electric car by offering a huge bounty and incentive for those companies that do, or to punitively tax for companies that continue to produce gas consumptive cars? If the answer is not obvious, you are a fool.

There is no morality, no personality, and no individuality in the market system!

Stop trying to make it happen! It is an emotionless system, and that is okay!

So let's look at all of the factors:

You are now the proud owner of a toy company, RepublaToys Inc. You became very popular with your line of political action figures. You have successfully expanded your business from a sole proprietor, running from your home, to a publicly traded corporation. You have recently bought many factories across the country and have expanded your labor force. However, this is your first year as a corporation and its tax time. The current corporate tax rate in America is approximately 38%.

Thus, when next year comes around, you need to get your profit level up. You did well last year, but investors are looking for a better return. You discover that Ireland is inviting corporation to build there, their corporate tax rate is 12%. Thus, you close 1/2 of your factories and ship them to Ireland. The minimum wage is higher in Ireland, but you are not expected to pay benefits because of Ireland National Health Services (NHS).

Your second year in business you make a killing. you show immense gains and your investors are pleased. However, Americans are complaining about the lack of jobs you produce. Thus, the federal government offers subsidies to your business if you will agree to make 5,000 jobs this year. You open a new factory, make the jobs and receive the subsidies. You make a profit from your factories in Ireland, but your American factories break even.

The next year, there is an economic down turn in America, that only slightly affects Europe. You are forced to lay off more workers, until you decide to move your head quarters to Ireland.

Thus, America has lost lost of jobs and necessary revenue to run the government. How do they respond--they increase the corporate tax rate to 40%.

So you see, this whole system of creating jobs and giving subsidies falls second to the free market system. If you f....funk with the system, you funk with the available jobs.

Simple solutions:

1. Lower the corporate tax rate; even better, get rid of it!
2. Stop allowing Non-profits, who in their very nature do not worry about making a profit, control what is acceptable for "socially beneficial" corporations. I.e. Greens: get over it! Socialists: leave the money alone and jobs will be created; Liberals: government cannot do what free markets can
3. Offer subsidies and incentives for companies who open factories, develop new technologies, and create market viable solutions to the worlds problems

Simply put:

• Oil companies: let them drill, tax them less, have more money for your stupid pet projects
• Detroit Car Co: get rid of emissions and mileage standards

Liberals, leave the market alone!

Phillies Advance to the NLCS for the First Time Since 1993

Forrest McDonald on Book TV's In Depth

Click image to view the video.

Vice Presidential Debate

Behold Leviathan

Well, the bail out passed to day and Bush signed it to make it official. OH WHAT A GLORIOUS DAY!!! As if the government wasn't large, useless and intrusive enough, but now I can't even imagine the the beast that will be unleashed after today's festivities. The real kicker is that most Americans (what a stupid breed these Americans are) think that the government should intervene in this situation. Yes, unfortunately, Americans love the concept of the nanny state. Many believe that it is better to do something, than to do nothing. I find that logic to be lacking, well, any real insight...it's quite simplistic to say the least. Is it not better to do nothing, than to do something reckless that could, possibly, be more harmful than helpful? I am going to end this post with some quotes from Milton Friedman and hope that they will serve as a warning against the threat of Big Government.

"The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy."

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

"The power to do good is also the power to do harm. "

The Bail Out is Socialist...and Not Good Economics

In a recent article, "Kill the Bailout," Robert Tracinski argued that the bail out is socialist and an attack on free markets and, well, reality. Tracinski wrote:

"The House of Representatives deserves praise for taking swift action to avert a growing economic crisis--by not approving the trillion-dollar financial bailout plan."

"The bailout bill was blocked Monday by a rebellion among House Republicans, who voted two-to-one against a plan they consider a step down the "slippery slope to socialism," in the words of Texas Representative Jeb Hensarling."

"They are absolutely correct, and the 133 Republicans who voted to stop this coup against the financial markets--not to mention some of the 95 Democrats who may have balked for similar reasons--need to find the courage to stand firm. That's especially true since the Senate has voted to approve the bailout."

"The Senate is supposed to serve, in James Madison's analogy, as the "cooling saucer" for the hot tea served up by the House--but in this case, it is the House that has remained cool and refused to panic. That's because the hysterical demand for a bailout didn't come up from the people; it came down from the elites in Washington and Manhattan. The House is reflecting the sensible skepticism coming up from the folks on Main Street who don't want to pay the bills for bailing out Hank Paulson's former colleagues on Wall Street."

"Some cold, realistic scrutiny of the bailout is desperately needed because this plan is not just an attack on the free market. It is an attack on reality. The financial crisis was caused by more than a decade of using government power to rewrite the facts of reality and override the judgment of the market, and the bailout just offers more of the same fantasy economics."

"Congress wanted everyone to be able to get a mortgage to buy a home, regardless of income, credit history, or ability to save for a down payment. The name for this contradiction was "affordable housing," an initiative aimed at providing the benefits of home ownership to those who could not, in fact, afford it. So when the market concluded that low-income borrowers could not meet the credit requirements for mortgages, the Clinton administration invoked trumped-up charges of racism to expand enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, bullying banks into dropping as "arbitrary" such old-fashioned credit standards as proof of income. And when the market balked at the increased credit risk created by these loans, Congress backed the expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that used federally guaranteed money to buy up the increasingly risky mortgages."

Full article.

"Paper is Poverty": Thomas Jefferson on Paper Money, Hard Currency, and Banks

All this talk lately of banks and bail outs and big government has me reconsidering various aspects of the American financial system. Before this financial crisis I didn't much think about things such as finance or currency. I didn't see any problems with fiat currency, (to be honest I didn't exactly know what fiat currency was, but I thought I did) but now I am coming to see the utter disastrousness of this type of currency system. I am beginning to become a convert to the gold standard. (maybe we can go back in time and nominate Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for the presidency)

I recently came across a post on John Maass's A Student of History entitled "WWJD," what would Jefferson do? As a student of the past I often try to put current events into historical perspective. So, I have tried to adopt WWJD. Though I am using WWJD in a different way than Maass, I have decided to look to Jefferson for some insight (or whatever insight I can glean from his writings) on the current economic/financial situation. I can't exactly be sure what Jefferson would do, but I do know how he felt about paper money, hard currency and banks. Here are some quotes from Jefferson's writings on these subjects.

On paper money vs. hard currency:

"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war." (1813)

"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." (1788)

"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted." (1791)

On the dangers of paper money:

"That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied." (1817)

"The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted." (1813)

"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us." (1813)

On the importance of personal economy:

"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth." (1787)

"Every discouragement should be thrown in the way of men who undertake to trade without capital." (1785)

"We should try whether the prodigal might not be restrained from taking on credit the gewgaw held out to him in one hand, by seeing the keys of a prison in the other." (1786)

On banks and banking:

"That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied." (1810)

"The banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will." (1819)

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." (1816)

"The principle of rotation... in the body of [bank] directors... breaks in upon the espirit de corps so apt to prevail in permanent bodies; it gives a chance for the public eye penetrating into the sanctuary of those proceedings and practices, which the avarice of the directors may introduce for their personal emolument, and which the resentments of excluded directors, or the honesty of those duly admitted, might betray to the public; and it gives an opportunity at the end of the year, or at other periods, of correcting a choice, which on trial, proves to have been unfortunate." (1803)

I'm Not Sure I'm Ready For Obammunsim