« Coal in the Fitzmas Stocking | Main | Worth Noting »

June 13, 2006

Comments

finally! :) i have a question i've been waiting to ask all y'all:

can anyone recommend a good book on the American Revolution? if possible, i'd like one that doesn't spend a lot of time in detailed discussions about battlefields, troop movements and cannon placement - yes, i know there was a war, but i'm not really into military tactics. so, something that focuses on the general poltiical situation, the movers and shakers, and how John Q Colonist felt about the whole thing... ?

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a few other NGOs, have designated June Torture Awareness Month. We've created a blogroll you can join if you're interested. You can find it here. The idea is that everyone is linked to from the blogroll, and in exchange, all you have to do is discuss torture in your blog, and link to the Torture Awareness site to help support the NGOs.

There's a lot of bloggers concerned about human rights abuse in the War on Terror. If we coordinate, we can show our support and help Amnesty and HRW make Torture Awareness Month a success.

Oh, and if 17 beers a day is a bit too much for you, you can always go back to drinking a glass or red a day for antioxidants. Works for me :-)

Anyone who likes beer should read the Friday Beer Blogging posts at Balloon Juice.

MORE GREAT NEWS FOR PISSHEADS (er, that's 'heavy drinkers' for non-Aussies).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/coffee-stops-liver-rot-in-big-drinkers/2006/06/13/1149964535566.html

PS Japan went down, Brazil next, GOOOOOO Socceroos!!!!

OOPS! Cleek wanted a good book on the American Civil War (strictly speaking it was NOT a Revolution as each State DID have the legal right to secede), try http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260476/qid=1150262549/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-7055408-4038514?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Professor Thomas E. Woods "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" N.Y.Times best seller

"...(strictly speaking it was NOT a Revolution as each State DID have the legal right to secede)...."

Um, that was the point that everyone was fighting about, you know (although over the issue of slavery, of course), but the folks who claimed that lost. (This seems too obvious to have to note, but, then, you are claiming otherwise, so.)

Incidentally, your attempted link is broken. Both of them.

The second one, at least, is this, and, um, here's how the description starts:

Claiming that most textbooks and popular history books were written by biased left-wing writers and scholars, historian Thomas Woods offers this guide as an alternative to "the stale and predictable platitudes of mainstream texts."
Yeah, well, I'm not a fan of the Howard Zinn school, but if you think this guy is more correct, well, you don't know what you're talking about.

But I see where you got your point from:

[...] the American War Between the States (to even call it a civil war is inaccurate, Woods says) was not principally about slavery, Abraham Lincoln was no friend to the slaves, and FDR's New Deal policies actually made the Depression worse. The first is a Big Lie, the second is reasonably true, and the third is more debatable, but is also basically a propaganda point, although certainly the New Deal consisted of throwing a thousand policies at the wall at the speed of about three a week and seeing which stuck and did some good; they were a very mixed bag, is the fair short summary.

But claiming that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is like saying that Hitler wasn't about Nazism, but merely was a German patriot. No one familiar with the actual writings of the Confederate leaders could possibly honestly make such a claim.

Oh, yeah, the publisher? Regnery Publishing, Inc. Of course.

Drat. Let's try that again.

"...(strictly speaking it was NOT a Revolution as each State DID have the legal right to secede)...."

Um, that was the point that everyone was fighting about, you know (although over the issue of slavery, of course), but the folks who claimed that lost. (This seems too obvious to have to note, but, then, you are claiming otherwise, so.)

Incidentally, your attempted link is broken. Both of them.

The second one, at least, is this, and, um, here's how the description starts:

Claiming that most textbooks and popular history books were written by biased left-wing writers and scholars, historian Thomas Woods offers this guide as an alternative to "the stale and predictable platitudes of mainstream texts."
Yeah, well, I'm not a fan of the Howard Zinn school, but if you think this guy is more correct, well, you don't know what you're talking about.

But I see where you got your point from:

[...] the American War Between the States (to even call it a civil war is inaccurate, Woods says) was not principally about slavery, Abraham Lincoln was no friend to the slaves, and FDR's New Deal policies actually made the Depression worse.
The first is a Big Lie, the second is reasonably true, and the third is more debatable, but is also basically a propaganda point, although certainly the New Deal consisted of throwing a thousand policies at the wall at the speed of about three a week and seeing which stuck and did some good; they were a very mixed bag, is the fair short summary.

But claiming that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is like saying that Hitler wasn't about Nazism, but merely was a German patriot. No one familiar with the actual writings of the Confederate leaders could possibly honestly make such a claim.

Oh, yeah, the publisher? Regnery Publishing, Inc. Of course.

Woods' book was a best-seller; with the sort of people who insist that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who murdered Vince Foster. And they find the view that the Civil War wasn't about slavery extremely comforting.

PS Japan went down, Brazil next, GOOOOOO Socceroos!!!!

Perhaps this is just bitter spite talking, but if you think the ozzies are going to be able to be blessed with a 10 minute end of game brainlock like what the Japanese did, you've got another think coming.

Again, not out of spite, but I invite you to read this for the numerous examples of slagging off it contains.

Thanks Gary. I'll fix it (them).

Whoops. Gary: I think you're referring to Greg's links, not mine. (It's an admission of my own blogging ineptitude that I immediately assumed that I screwed up.) Greg: I'm sorry, I can't fix the links for you.

Woods' book was a best-seller; with the sort of people who insist that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who murdered Vince Foster

oy. i suppose i should have added that i'm not really interested in that kind of thing, either.

Woods' book was a best-seller; with the sort of people who insist that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who murdered Vince Foster

Fiction or nonfiction?

No matter. Given that John Gray made the yearly bestseller list (top ten!) six times in one decade, I'm more worried that people in general will believe absolutely anything than I am that it's just conservatives. Kitty Kelly also made the yearly top ten list a couple of times in the '90s.

Of course, this probably depends greatly on what one uses as a gauge of "bestseller".

Actually, I am more surprised that "Uh-Oh: Some Observations from Both Sides of the Refrigerator Door", by Robert Fulghum was as high as number 3 in one year. One of the few times I have ever agreed with Florence King was when she said that the subtitle is especially apt, as it could have been written by a head of cabbage, either before or after conversion into cole slaw.

Mmmmm...cole slaw.

One of the few times I have ever agreed with Florence King was when she said that the subtitle is especially apt, as it could have been written by a head of cabbage, either before or after conversion into cole slaw.

I adore Florence King. Of course, she wouldn't adore me in the slightest, but as we've never met, that's OK.

(I disagree with approximately 2/3rds of everything she says, but I love the way she says it.)

Sweet:

The cards -- given to people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- also bought diamond jewelry and a vacation in the Dominican Republic, according to the Government Accountability Office audit.

The GAO uncovered records showing that $1,000 from a FEMA debit card went to a Houston divorce lawyer; $600 was spent in a strip club and $400 was spent on "adult erotica products," all of which auditors concluded were "not necessary to satisfy legitimate disaster needs."

There's more, believe it or not.

my wife and i got tattoos (not matching) for our 9th anniversary, last year, late september. there were people in the place (Raleigh, NC) getting tattoos with their FEMA cards.

"'not necessary to satisfy legitimate disaster needs'."

I would contest the last item. It seems to me that local weathermen's forecasts around the country were fully engorged with the anticipation of gigantic low pressure zones bearing down on New Orleans.

Gary:

But claiming that the Civil War wasn't about slavery...
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that it wasn't principally about slavery.

Bill Getes steps down as chief exec at MS.

"The claim was that it wasn't principally about slavery."

It (the American Civil War) was entirely about slavery. The sole reason secession was considered was to preserve the right to traffic in and own human chattel.

Democrats voted last night to strip Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) of a plum committee assignment while he is embroiled in a federal bribery investigation.

The 99 to 58 vote followed weeks of public and private wrangling, as Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought to take a strong election-year stance on ethics, while Jefferson's allies -- mainly fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- protested that he was being singled out for unfair treatment.

So, good. Not overwhelmingly good, mind you, but good nonetheless.

Ach, didn't close the tag properly. Sorry.

Actually Cleek wanted a good book about the Revolutionary War. You could do worse than Robert Middlekauff's "The Glorious Cause," part of the Oxford History of the U.S. imprint. Lots of general political context, a smattering of John Q. Colonist (though it is certainly not a social history in its primary design).

As for the civil war, it starts and ends with Shelby Foote for me. Oh, and as for Woods, anyone so concerned about agenda that he makes an utterly meaningless statement like "the American revolutionaries were actually conservatives!" is writing a polemic, not a history.

st, Amazon and I thank you.

cleek,
Amazon is nice, but consider Powells next time.

consider Powells next time

i often mean to
yet always forget to

Where Murtha-bashing takes us: latest Coulter:

[...] she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: "The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"

Gary,

Exactly why I did not get excited by the statement of hers re: the September 11 widows. It likely isn't in the top 100 of the most offensive things she has said. And it speaks volumes that many Republicans in the political arena found only that statement to have gone too far.

Thanks for the link, Gary. I was glad to see this from Mike Krempasky at Redstate:

But there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.
It's not the bile Coulter spews that worries me as much as the people who will defend it.

Dantheman:

Exactly why I did not get excited by the statement of hers re: the September 11 widows. It likely isn't in the top 100 of the most offensive things she has said.
No, but like the "fragging" comment, there are an eerily high number of people on the right who accept it as fact.

New Bush chief domestic policy advisor wants to jail doctors who perform abortions.

Kevin Drum addresses the "but real conservatism hasn't been tried!"/"Bush isn't a real conservative!" argument that Slart was making the other day.

Remember, the assigned reading is inclusive of Jon Chait's piece!

Kevin Drum addresses the "but real conservatism hasn't been tried!"/"Bush isn't a real conservative!" argument that Slart was making the other day.

Remember, the assigned reading includes Jon Chait's piece. Page 2 here.

but real conservatism hasn't been tried...argument that Slart was making the other day

Cite, please?

I'm going to go out on a limb, then, and state outright that I've never made such an argument. I believe I've made statments to the effect that Bush reslly isn't all that conservative, which of course you are free to morph into whatever you like, provided you don't expect me to acknowledge purported thrashings of said argument as thrashings of my argument.

Not too impressed with the Chait article, regardless. Why should I care what Jonah Goldberg and George Will write? They're not me, and I don't use them as predigsstors of ideas. Nor do I give them my seal of approval as Those Who Speak For Me.

And, stealing a maneuver from norbizness, modifying and complementing it, I am not Conservatives, nor are they me.

Let me say that I'm in complete agreement with Slartibartfastkoshi, down to the last syllable.

Autocomplete is a pain, sometimes.

Well, Slart, as I understand it, you identify as a conservative, not just as an individual thinker. So, for clarity, then, could you please name, say, 6 or 8 writers or historic conservative thinkers who do represent the sort of conservatism you identify with?

Thanks.

"I believe I've made statments to the effect that Bush reslly isn't all that conservative..."

Stalin really wasn't all that much of a communist, either.

Beside the point, Gary. Where did I make the argument that real conservatism hasn't been tried yet? As far as I know, there isn't anything that you could get more than half of conservatives to agree on as "real conservatism", as a combination of foriegn and domestic policy. And half is being very, very optimistic, I think.

foreign, even. Damned near vision.

Stalin was a middling good Stalinist, as far as I've been able to tell. I'm sure I am to some extent wrong about this, but I think that naming an ideology after the person who's advocating and executing (so to speak) it is just about as close as one can get to accurate (if self-referential) labeling.

"Beside the point, Gary."

Is there some reason you can't just answer the question, please? Would it kill you to actually offer some positive information about your thinking, rather than holding it back so as to more easily make people take guesses, jump through hoops, so you can then shoot them down with cryptic denials?

Sheesh.

"Where did I make the argument that real conservatism hasn't been tried yet?"

It seemed to me that denying that George W. Bush is a conservative si exactly that argument, but since you deny it, I dropped it. What's that have to do with the question I asked you?

"As far as I know, there isn't anything that you could get more than half of conservatives to agree on as 'real conservatism', as a combination of foriegn and domestic policy."

This differs from defending communism by explain as regards the Soviet Union and Mao's China that "real communism" has never been tried, how?

I dropped it.

Ah, I missed that. Consider it dropped, then.

Is there some reason you can't just answer the question, please?

Well, because it looked to me like covert goalpost-repositioning, sans acknowledgement that I had made no statement resembling "real conservatism hasn't been tried". Now that we're past that (and hopefully we are past that), I can tell you that there's no single writer that I agree with 100%. I have on occasion agreed with William F. Buckley, when he's said things I agree with. I have also on occasion agreed with George Will, and maybe even with Cal Thomas (but that was only once or twice, I swear). As I've noted somewhere in these parts, recently, I've been made increasingly aware of my woeful lack of what I'll call Classical Education; the roots of I currently consider to be true in the political arena have mostly been arrived at via extremely spotty pick-and-choose of policy decisions in the recent (i.e. in my adult life) past.

IOW I (not for the first time) freely admit to ignorance.

This differs from defending communism by explain as regards the Soviet Union and Mao's China that "real communism" has never been tried, how?

I'm not concerned with whether it's really been tried so much as the consequences of further experimentation. But to answer the question, it's different in a number of ways, chiefly in that experimenting around with our political ideologies has resulted in a few tens of millions of American deaths than the experimental stages in the USSR and the PRC. Other than that niggling little detail, there may not be much difference. If it weren't for that detail, I probably wouldn't care.

It seemed to me that denying that George W. Bush is a conservative

Did I do that? I thought I'd just said he wasn't all that conservative, which is a different thing altogether. But if it confused, what I meant by that to the extent that he can be considered conservative at all, he's been inconsistent. Case in point: failure to veto spending pork such as the Farm Bill. 'Nother case in point: steel tariffs. Not saying approval of those things is liberal, either, just that they're not consistent with what I hold to be conservative policies, which generally value free trade and small government. Not that we've ever had those things, but when there's a pattern of the opposite of those things simply sailing past Congress AND the Executive, I tend to think that the participants are falling out of position.

has NOT resulted in a few tens of millions, is what I thought I'd typed.

This is just awful. I don't know if it affects me more because it's nearby, or because of revulsion at the notion of someone carving up their own kid, but...just, awful.

Ouch. "Ahead of the news cycle", indeed.

On the non-political front, this is a remarkable achievement:

Hoff Covers All the Bases -- June 19, 2006

BALTIMORE, Maryland, June 19. WHEN Katie Hoff competed at the Charlotte UltraSwim, she collected more than the few victories she added to her resume. By posting qualifying times in the 100 backstroke and 800 freestyle, Hoff became qualified for every event on the schedule for the 2008 Olympic Trials in Omaha, Nebraska.

So impressive has Hoff been since her arrival on the national scene, she is now expected to dazzle each time she enters the water. But, the fact that she’s qualified in each event for the Olympic Trials is difficult to fathom. For the record, she has Olympic trials cut times in the 50, 100, 200, 400 and 800 freestyles, the 100 and 200 backstrokes, the 100 and 200 butterfly events, the 100 and 200 breaststrokes and the 200 and 400 individual medley disciplines. That’s a perfect 13-for-13.

The poster girl for the North Baltimore Aquatic Club, Hoff’s next major competition will be the United States Nationals in Irvine, California in early August. That meet will serve as the qualifying event for the Pan Pacific Championships later in August. The results of those meets will determine the U.S. squad for the 2007 World Championships in Melbourne. At Nationals, Hoff is expected to swim the 100, 200 and 400 freestyles, along with both medley events.

I'm going to let my dictionary post for a while, given that it's much more difficult to annoy. At least, lately.

Just to clear things up. Either that, or autocomplete continues to be smarter than I am.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad