Yesterday while staying home with the lad (Who is just fine, by the way. His pediatrician thinks we may have a faulty monitor), I watched the History Channel program Wild West Tech. Yesterday's episode was "Massacre Tech", and covered several famous/infamous massacres in the old west. It was quite interesting.
And then it happened.
David Carradine was talking about a massacre that happened in Hells Canyon, and made reference to it as "Eastern Ora-gone"
*shudder*
I know, I know, that's how it's pronounced on every old western movie. And occasionally in the modern media. But it's not how it's pronounced by those of us who live here. I'm not sure quite how to convey to non-Oregonians how much we hate this pronunciation of our state's name, but I'll try.
Imagine if you will a giant chalkboard laying flat on the ground. Now imagine that Susan Esterich and Alanis Morissette, both wearing ice skates, are having a cat fight in the middle of this chalkboard, as Celine Dion sings and a thousand band saws cut into the edges of the chalkboard.
This scenario is only mildly irritating compared to the average Oregonian's reaction to "Ora-gone". So please, remember: Say it like "organ" or "Orygun".
Ora's still here.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Light Posting Day
This will be my last post for the day. The Lad had five apnea episodes yesterday, so we spent all night in the hospital. I'm taking the day off to rest and help care for him.
A Thrilla of a Grilla, or I've a Beef
Outside of the Larger cities of the Willamette Valley (namely Eugene, Salem, and the Portland Metro Area), Oregon is suprisingly Red State, and culturally closer to the Mountain West than to California. That's reflected in one of the annual promotionals run by Les Schwab Tires, a regional tire store chain. It's Free Beef Time at Les Schwab! A couple of years ago here in Eugene, a local bike shop tried to lampoon it with Fre Tofu Days. It flopped.
So this year, with the tires on the Moronmobile going bald, I decided to buy their replacements at Les Schwab, both because of the free beef and because I like supporting local and regional businesses. But there was a bonus. They're having a drawing to give away a bunch of these:
It's a Traeger Lil' Tex barbecue. It's not gas, it's not charcoal -- it uses wood. Wood pellets, to be precise. They're made right here in Oregon, and apparently they're quite popular even in traditional barbecueing regions. It's a true barbecue, not just a grill -- you can smoke, slow barbecue, or grill on it.
And I want it.
So this year, with the tires on the Moronmobile going bald, I decided to buy their replacements at Les Schwab, both because of the free beef and because I like supporting local and regional businesses. But there was a bonus. They're having a drawing to give away a bunch of these:
It's a Traeger Lil' Tex barbecue. It's not gas, it's not charcoal -- it uses wood. Wood pellets, to be precise. They're made right here in Oregon, and apparently they're quite popular even in traditional barbecueing regions. It's a true barbecue, not just a grill -- you can smoke, slow barbecue, or grill on it.
And I want it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Your Weekly Dose of Baby Stuff
Wow. TFR just called, and in the last 5 days The Lad has gone from 7 lbs. 12 oz. to 8 Lbs 5.8 oz.
That's my lad!
It really is a trip being a father, but it's the coolest trip I could ever take. TFR has been wonderful, taking the graveyard shift feedings so I can sleep, while I take the morning feeding before leaving for work, and the evening feedings (Except the one during which I'm cooking). Teamwork definitely is a must for raising a kid.
He's still not quite getting the hang of nursing, so we are supplementing with a bottle using a mixture of formula and breast milk. Interesting consequence: Family trips are limited to distances with a round trip travel time that fits between scheduled pumpings, unless there is a destination or place to stop which can accomodate said pumping.
The other night, The Lad and His Dad had a moment. He was snigglued in my arms, staring up at me, and the moment seemed to warrant a lullaby. So Dear Old Dad sang to Chay the most beautiful song he could think of on the fly. It's a song he hopes his son grows up to love as dearly. It goes like this:
O! Say can you see, by the dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there. O! Say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?
That's my lad!
It really is a trip being a father, but it's the coolest trip I could ever take. TFR has been wonderful, taking the graveyard shift feedings so I can sleep, while I take the morning feeding before leaving for work, and the evening feedings (Except the one during which I'm cooking). Teamwork definitely is a must for raising a kid.
He's still not quite getting the hang of nursing, so we are supplementing with a bottle using a mixture of formula and breast milk. Interesting consequence: Family trips are limited to distances with a round trip travel time that fits between scheduled pumpings, unless there is a destination or place to stop which can accomodate said pumping.
The other night, The Lad and His Dad had a moment. He was snigglued in my arms, staring up at me, and the moment seemed to warrant a lullaby. So Dear Old Dad sang to Chay the most beautiful song he could think of on the fly. It's a song he hopes his son grows up to love as dearly. It goes like this:
O! Say can you see, by the dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there. O! Say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?
That Thumping Sound
Is my head banging against my desk.
Back during the first days after the birth of The Lad, my good friend Vulture 6 exhorted me not to turn Memento Moron into a Daddy Blog. Alas, according to Sobek, I have failed. I suppose Seppuku is in order? Yet not one to wallow in my "sin", I've made an effort to cut through the sleep deprivation fog and blog about other stuff. Yet since I returned to work and to blogging about other issues, my traffic has dropped, my comments have dropped, and at least once a week I get, "So when are you gonna blog about the kid more?"
So howsabout a compromise: I'll post a weekly update on the progress of the Lad, and you folks comment at least once a week on something other than how darn cute he is.
Deal?
Back during the first days after the birth of The Lad, my good friend Vulture 6 exhorted me not to turn Memento Moron into a Daddy Blog. Alas, according to Sobek, I have failed. I suppose Seppuku is in order? Yet not one to wallow in my "sin", I've made an effort to cut through the sleep deprivation fog and blog about other stuff. Yet since I returned to work and to blogging about other issues, my traffic has dropped, my comments have dropped, and at least once a week I get, "So when are you gonna blog about the kid more?"
So howsabout a compromise: I'll post a weekly update on the progress of the Lad, and you folks comment at least once a week on something other than how darn cute he is.
Deal?
S is for Sedition
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
This is truly sad. Apparently a young soldier (the brother of one of Emperor Misha's readers, as it turns out), serving currently in Korea, received apackage of letters from an elementarty school in New York. I've been told there are few things more bolstering to morale than receiving letters from home. Unfortunately, these letters were not all of a supportive nature:
This is utterly shameful. I know that the left argues repeatedly that they support the troops but oppose the war. And I'm sure there are many who truly believe that. But they need to be made aware of the fact that there is an undercurrent within their political stream that does NOT truly support the troops. Incidents like the harassment of a recruiter at Seattle Community College, the Pearsalls, and this, indicate that there are plenty of people willing to direct their anger and disapproval directly at the troops.
The school from which the letters were sent has tried to distance itself from the controversy:
This is a cop-out. These are schoolchildren in a classroom, not adults exercizing their free speech. This was an ASSIGNMENT. If the teacher had the authority to assign these children to write the letters, he had the authority to ensure they were appropriate to the stated intent of the assignment. Since he obviously did not, I can only reach one of two conclusions: Either he shirked his duty to review the letters, or he himself approved of their content.
In either case, he's not conveying the kind of message I hope my child learns some day.
This is truly sad. Apparently a young soldier (the brother of one of Emperor Misha's readers, as it turns out), serving currently in Korea, received apackage of letters from an elementarty school in New York. I've been told there are few things more bolstering to morale than receiving letters from home. Unfortunately, these letters were not all of a supportive nature:
That changed when he opened the envelope and found missives strewn with politically charged rhetoric, vicious accusations and demoralizing predictions that only a handful of soldiers would leave the Iraq war alive.
This is utterly shameful. I know that the left argues repeatedly that they support the troops but oppose the war. And I'm sure there are many who truly believe that. But they need to be made aware of the fact that there is an undercurrent within their political stream that does NOT truly support the troops. Incidents like the harassment of a recruiter at Seattle Community College, the Pearsalls, and this, indicate that there are plenty of people willing to direct their anger and disapproval directly at the troops.
The school from which the letters were sent has tried to distance itself from the controversy:
The JHS 51 teacher, Alex Kunhardt, did not return phone calls, but the school principal, Xavier Costello, responded with a statement:
"While we would never censor anything that our children write, we sincerely apologize for forwarding letters that were in any way inappropriate to Pfc. Jacobs. This assignment was not intended to be insensitive, but to be supportive of the men and women in service to our nation."
This is a cop-out. These are schoolchildren in a classroom, not adults exercizing their free speech. This was an ASSIGNMENT. If the teacher had the authority to assign these children to write the letters, he had the authority to ensure they were appropriate to the stated intent of the assignment. Since he obviously did not, I can only reach one of two conclusions: Either he shirked his duty to review the letters, or he himself approved of their content.
In either case, he's not conveying the kind of message I hope my child learns some day.
Do's and Don'ts
An excellent Blog has come to my attention by merit of the Blogger's comments here. I commend to you The Chairman's Corner. Thanks for the Memory to the Chairman for sharing an excellent editorial written by Charles Colson for Breakpoint, Moral Equivalency: The Religious Left Gets It Wrong.
Colson addresses the Sanctity of Life Vs. Social Justice argument. To explain this argument, Colson makes reference to Jim Wallis, editor of the left-leaning Christian magazine Sojourners:
Colson's counter-argument is that the issue of abortion has a higher moral priority, and that furthermore, from a Christian viewpoint, support of abortion removes the moral authority from which to speak concerning the poor. It's a well-made and compelling argument, and one with which I am inclined to agree. However, I must admit it is a point I had previously failed to note in my own rationale for becoming a political conservative.
Interesting note: Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, at the time in my life when I was the most active in religious pursuits (I was aspiring to become a missionary, in fact), I was also the furthest to the left politically I've ever been -- for much the same reason as Wallis. I remember marching in an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1987, piously holding up a sign which read "Totally Pro-Life", proclaiming that I opposed abortion, war, the death penalty, nuclear proliferation, and eating grapes picked by oppressed migrant workers. I read Sojourners and the Door and World Christian, attended Ubana in 1987, and even wrote in Tony Campolo for president in 1992.
So what changed my mind? What led me to the "Dark Side", to reject the liberal emphasis on social programs while still opposing abortion? Unlike Colson, I never thought through the issue of varying degrees of morality between the issues. For me, it had to do with the difference between making people do the right thing and preventing them from doing the wrong thing. I fully believe in helping the poor, and do so actively, to the degree that I am able. But I don't believe it's proper for the government to decide who is or isn't poor enough to merit my help, and I am skeptical regarding the efficacy of their methods of providing that help. That's what I mean by making others do right -- the essence of Socialism. On the other hand, abortion is an active wrong -- one living being killing another living being. I am not making someone extend themselves to do good, I am preventing them from doing bad.
Men's hearts may be dark, and that is their own business. When it becomes my business, nay, our business, is when they try to snuff out another's light.
Colson addresses the Sanctity of Life Vs. Social Justice argument. To explain this argument, Colson makes reference to Jim Wallis, editor of the left-leaning Christian magazine Sojourners:
Wallis’s favorite argument, as reported in the Times and elsewhere, is that the Bible makes more than three thousand references to poverty—far more than abortion or homosexuality—and yet religious conservatives, in his opinion, are obsessed with the abortion issue. So, says Wallis, the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives.
Colson's counter-argument is that the issue of abortion has a higher moral priority, and that furthermore, from a Christian viewpoint, support of abortion removes the moral authority from which to speak concerning the poor. It's a well-made and compelling argument, and one with which I am inclined to agree. However, I must admit it is a point I had previously failed to note in my own rationale for becoming a political conservative.
Interesting note: Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, at the time in my life when I was the most active in religious pursuits (I was aspiring to become a missionary, in fact), I was also the furthest to the left politically I've ever been -- for much the same reason as Wallis. I remember marching in an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1987, piously holding up a sign which read "Totally Pro-Life", proclaiming that I opposed abortion, war, the death penalty, nuclear proliferation, and eating grapes picked by oppressed migrant workers. I read Sojourners and the Door and World Christian, attended Ubana in 1987, and even wrote in Tony Campolo for president in 1992.
So what changed my mind? What led me to the "Dark Side", to reject the liberal emphasis on social programs while still opposing abortion? Unlike Colson, I never thought through the issue of varying degrees of morality between the issues. For me, it had to do with the difference between making people do the right thing and preventing them from doing the wrong thing. I fully believe in helping the poor, and do so actively, to the degree that I am able. But I don't believe it's proper for the government to decide who is or isn't poor enough to merit my help, and I am skeptical regarding the efficacy of their methods of providing that help. That's what I mean by making others do right -- the essence of Socialism. On the other hand, abortion is an active wrong -- one living being killing another living being. I am not making someone extend themselves to do good, I am preventing them from doing bad.
Men's hearts may be dark, and that is their own business. When it becomes my business, nay, our business, is when they try to snuff out another's light.
Monday, February 21, 2005
The DNC: Only MOSTLY Dead
Thanks for the Memory to Wizbang! via the Llama Butchers.
Why, oh WHY am I completely unsurprised that this happened here in Oregon?
Protester Throws Shoe at Richard Perle
Apparently, during a debate in Portland between Howard Dean and Richard Perle, a protestor had to be forcibly removed from the event after throwing a shoe at Perle.
Wizbang has some video footage of the debate, but they're not sure if it contains the shoe incident. However, based on information contained in the AP article, I think I have discovered the identity of the assailant:
Why, oh WHY am I completely unsurprised that this happened here in Oregon?
Protester Throws Shoe at Richard Perle
Apparently, during a debate in Portland between Howard Dean and Richard Perle, a protestor had to be forcibly removed from the event after throwing a shoe at Perle.
Wizbang has some video footage of the debate, but they're not sure if it contains the shoe incident. However, based on information contained in the AP article, I think I have discovered the identity of the assailant:
Perle had just started his comments Thursday when a protester threw a shoe at him before being dragged away, screaming, "Liar! Liar!"
Hymnal
One of the things I like about the little church TFR and I attend is the fact that the pastor, who also leads worship, likes to mix a few old hymns in with the newer praise and worship tunes. Yesterday, we sang one of my favorites, My Hope is Built. So I decided I'd share a list of my 10 favorite (non-Christmas) hymns, in no particular order:
Doxology (Old Hundred)
All Hail The Power of Jesus Name
A Mighty Fortress
Amazing Grace
Be Still My Soul
O the Deep Deep Love of Jesus
It is Well
The Old Rugged Cross
Standing on the Promises
My Hope is Built
Doxology (Old Hundred)
All Hail The Power of Jesus Name
A Mighty Fortress
Amazing Grace
Be Still My Soul
O the Deep Deep Love of Jesus
It is Well
The Old Rugged Cross
Standing on the Promises
My Hope is Built
Let's Call The Whole Thing Off
Last week I posted a soup recipe which Maximum Leader of Naked Villainy agreed to try and review. I'm hoping he didn't get around to it, since I left out a key ingredient, a can of stewed tomatoes. The recipe has been corrected.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Bus STOP!
I take the bus to work every day (aka the Petri Dish on Wheels). This morning as I arrived at the bus stop down the street from the Moron Cave, another rider was already at the stop. She apparently didn't feel well, because she was coughing. She was coughing hard. She was coughing one of those coughs that manages to be phlegmy and yet harsh and raspy at the same time. She was coughing so hard that tears were streaming down her face, and eventually she coughed so hard she puked, right there at the bus stop. So what did dhe do after she got the coughing to stop? You guessed it. She lit up a cigarette. I'm so freaking glad I never started smoking.
So I climb onto the bus, and find a seat. Across the aisle from me is a young couple, and the woman is coughing almost as badly as the passengert at the stop was. All up and down the bus, people were coughing with various degrees of intensity. I immediately thought of my new son and his health and all the yummy germs I probably bring home to him.
I can't wait until the weather permits me to climb back on my bicycle every morning.
So I climb onto the bus, and find a seat. Across the aisle from me is a young couple, and the woman is coughing almost as badly as the passengert at the stop was. All up and down the bus, people were coughing with various degrees of intensity. I immediately thought of my new son and his health and all the yummy germs I probably bring home to him.
I can't wait until the weather permits me to climb back on my bicycle every morning.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Miles to Go Before I Pay
Thanks for the Memory to Vodkapundit via The Wheat Rye Guy.
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right.
Yesterday I added my Widow's Mite of opinion to a discussion over at Vodkapundit's Blog regarding a proposal by the state of California to tax people based on the number of miles driven, a proposal inspired (ironically enough) by decreases in gasoline tax revenues caused in turn by an increase in the fuel efficiency of newer vehicles. I not only expressed my misgivings regarding such a concept, and furthermore, my dismay that my own home state of Oregon is experimenting with such a tax. However, after reading an article in the Seattle Times (which one of VP's readers provided) regarding Oregon's experiment with the concept, I am forced to admit that for once Oregon's normally wacky state government may be on the right track. If I may be permitted to explain?
I preface my explanation by saying that in concept, road tolls or a mileage tax like this make more sense to me, and seem far fairer, than a gas tax. This is because tolls and mileage taxes charge the users of roads specifically, and charge them based on how much they use the roads. Those who benefit directly are charged directly, and in direct proportion to the amount of benefit they receive. My objections to, or rather my concerns over, such a mileage tax, have more to do with practical considerations regarding its implementation and unintended consequences that need to be addressed. The Devil is, after all, in the details. The article addressed some of those concerns, and my own reflection on the issue caused a further shift.
My first concern is that if such a tax is implemented, it would be a tax in addition to gas taxes, rather than a replacement. I'm all for re-applying a necessary tax with a more equitable form of taxation, but I'm hesitant to increase taxes unless absolutely necessary. However, the article clearly points out that in the case of Oregon's experiment with the tax, it would be a replacement for the gas tax, not an additional tax.
My second concern has to do with the unintended result such a tax might have of discouraging the use of more fuel efficient vehicles. But upon further reflection, I realized two things. First of all, if the mileage tax is a replacement tax and not in addition to a gas tax, this is not so much of an issue. Secondly, I came to the realization that opposing such a tax based on this objection would be intellectually inconsistent on my part, and here is the reason why:
I don't beleive a tax should intentionally be engineered to specifically encourage or discourage a given behavior. If by engaging in a given behavior individuals create a material burden on the general public, I have no problem with taxing that behavior in order to mitigate that burden. And if such legitimate taxation happens to have the side effect of causing the individual to reconsider the behavior, that's a bonus. But taxing the behavior JUST to discourage it, that smacks of stateism to me. If I am to be consistent, then I cannot oppose a tax simply because implementing it fails to reward GOOD behavior.
My final concern was regarding the practicality of implementing such a tax, particularly for drivers of older cars. The article addresses that as well, stating that if implemented, it would only apply to new vehicles, while older vehicles would still pay a Gas tax.
In conclusion, I still have some concerns regarding the implementation of such a concept. And while the article allayed some of those concerns, it raised others. If all of those concerns can be and are addressed, I believe that such a tax, if implemented AS A REPLACEMENT FOR a gasoline tax, is not so bad an idea.
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right.
Yesterday I added my Widow's Mite of opinion to a discussion over at Vodkapundit's Blog regarding a proposal by the state of California to tax people based on the number of miles driven, a proposal inspired (ironically enough) by decreases in gasoline tax revenues caused in turn by an increase in the fuel efficiency of newer vehicles. I not only expressed my misgivings regarding such a concept, and furthermore, my dismay that my own home state of Oregon is experimenting with such a tax. However, after reading an article in the Seattle Times (which one of VP's readers provided) regarding Oregon's experiment with the concept, I am forced to admit that for once Oregon's normally wacky state government may be on the right track. If I may be permitted to explain?
I preface my explanation by saying that in concept, road tolls or a mileage tax like this make more sense to me, and seem far fairer, than a gas tax. This is because tolls and mileage taxes charge the users of roads specifically, and charge them based on how much they use the roads. Those who benefit directly are charged directly, and in direct proportion to the amount of benefit they receive. My objections to, or rather my concerns over, such a mileage tax, have more to do with practical considerations regarding its implementation and unintended consequences that need to be addressed. The Devil is, after all, in the details. The article addressed some of those concerns, and my own reflection on the issue caused a further shift.
My first concern is that if such a tax is implemented, it would be a tax in addition to gas taxes, rather than a replacement. I'm all for re-applying a necessary tax with a more equitable form of taxation, but I'm hesitant to increase taxes unless absolutely necessary. However, the article clearly points out that in the case of Oregon's experiment with the tax, it would be a replacement for the gas tax, not an additional tax.
My second concern has to do with the unintended result such a tax might have of discouraging the use of more fuel efficient vehicles. But upon further reflection, I realized two things. First of all, if the mileage tax is a replacement tax and not in addition to a gas tax, this is not so much of an issue. Secondly, I came to the realization that opposing such a tax based on this objection would be intellectually inconsistent on my part, and here is the reason why:
I don't beleive a tax should intentionally be engineered to specifically encourage or discourage a given behavior. If by engaging in a given behavior individuals create a material burden on the general public, I have no problem with taxing that behavior in order to mitigate that burden. And if such legitimate taxation happens to have the side effect of causing the individual to reconsider the behavior, that's a bonus. But taxing the behavior JUST to discourage it, that smacks of stateism to me. If I am to be consistent, then I cannot oppose a tax simply because implementing it fails to reward GOOD behavior.
My final concern was regarding the practicality of implementing such a tax, particularly for drivers of older cars. The article addresses that as well, stating that if implemented, it would only apply to new vehicles, while older vehicles would still pay a Gas tax.
In conclusion, I still have some concerns regarding the implementation of such a concept. And while the article allayed some of those concerns, it raised others. If all of those concerns can be and are addressed, I believe that such a tax, if implemented AS A REPLACEMENT FOR a gasoline tax, is not so bad an idea.
Apologies
Sorry for the lack of posts lately, folks. Still not 100% accustomed to operating in New-Father-Sleep-Deprivation-Zombie-Mode, and I just can't quite figure out what I want to say or what sunbject I want to pursue.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
A Question Regarding the Civil War
UPDATE:
The Following Post was originally posted way back on September 14, 2004. Soon after I posted it, Naked Villainy's Smallholder emailed a response to me which I thought was very thoughtful response, which I chose to add to the post. At the end of this post you'll see today's update.
This post is going to be a bit different for me. I want to ask a question of those who read my blog, and let the real meat of this post be in the comments.
As anyone who read my post on books will know, my interest in the American Civil War has been piqued only in the past ten years or so. Growing up in a portion of the country where no battles were fought, from which no regiments were sent to fight, a part of the country that was in its infancy when the war was being fought, it never had the personal impact on my heritage it does for easterners, not until you start learning about it on your own.
One of the issues that interests me most is the issue of the causes of the war. This is a source of great debate anmong historians, I do not as of yet have a concrete opinion on this. I am aware of the issues of Federal power vs. States rights, the sanctity of the Union, and slavery. I am aware of how ones regional heritage affects ones views of these issues (if you live back east especially).
What I'm curious about is this: Let us assume for the moment that the issue of slavery was secondary, and that it only served to bring to a head the other issues. If that is the case, what, if any, domestic issue would have served to bring those issues to a head if the issue of slavery had not existed. In other words, if you are of the opinion that the country was a powder keg, and slavery was merely the fuse, then what other fuse could have touched off the powder keg if slavery had not?
I wait to be taught.
UPDATE:
Smallholder of Naked Villainy had quite a bit to say, and my comment section wouldn't hold it, so I have posted it here (as usual, I have a few replies to it of my own, in italics):
First of all, the issue is NOT a source of great debate between historians. I am unaware of a single professional, peer-reviewed historian working today who challenges the contention that the war was against slavery.
Granted. Most of the people I hear spouting the "States Rights" issue today are southerners and amateur historians (nothing wrong with that, that's the best I can claim for myself, as well).
There were some historians writing after the war -- “The Lost Cause” school who focused on other issues and there were several historians who wrote about the provocations of the North when viewing the world in a post-World War One light.
Many Sons of the Confederacy would like to obscure the issue because it is hard to realize that grandpappy fought for an evil cause. But the circumlocutions of the amateurs don’t unmake the reality of history.
The states rights issue is not the real issue; states rights, except perhaps for George Mason, has rarely been an end in itself; American history is replete with examples of the states’ relationship to the federal government being used as a fig-leaf to hide real motivations.
James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution insisted on ratification by conventions of the PEOPLE of the states rather than ratification by state legislatures precisely to avoid the use of state prerogative to void the will of the national government – they met in Philadelphia to replace a government rendered impotent by state prerogative.
But James Madison and his mentor Tom Jefferson were more than willing to revive the corpse of states’ rights when the Alien and Sedition Acts threatened their political party. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which awakened states rights, were very much a partisan political calculation. That partisanship can also be seen as sectional since the South heavily supported the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists were heavily supported by Northern mercantile interests.
The Democratic-Republican support of states’ rights bit them in the rear when the Northern states came to believe that they had nothing to gain and everything to lose from the war of 1812 and threatened (vaguely) secession at the Hartford Convention.
The issue of states rights popped up again when Georgia (with a wink and a nod from President Jackson) refused to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision on Cherokee removal. President Jackson wasn’t so indulgent when South Carolina nullified the Tariff of 1832, threatening military enforcement.
As the calls for abolition began to gather momentum in the North and the South’s peculiar institution became more and more entrenched socially, politically, and religiously, the South did try to use the concept of state’s rights to protect African enslavement. But it was a means, not an end. When federal power seemed likely to promote slavery, the South was eager to renounce the concept of states rights.
Examples of Southern support of federal supremacy can be seen at the outrage generated when Northern governors were reluctant to send funds and state militiamen to prosecute the Slavocracy’s land grab against Mexico in 1846.
I'm not the only one who noticed that, eh?
Southerners certainly supported federal supremacy when Roger Taney ruled that states did not have the right to outlaw slavery within their own boundaries, opening the entire union to legal slavery in the Dred Scott decision.
Southerners certainly supported federal supremacy when many Northern states sought to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law.
So states’ rights, while certainly discussed – and I know the Southern partisans are turning to old Army of Northern Virginia Newsletters to find quotes about their hero’s dedication to abstract legal principle – were used only with the intent of advancing the South’s real cause: the protection of perpetual bondage.
In other words, the rank and file soldiers of the Confederacy may have believed that State's Rights is what they were fighting for, but the real root cause really was slavery?
But I’m unlikely to convince anyone who proudly flies the Confederate flag with these examples. They will say a resident of Wisconsin is only trying to blacken the reputation of the noble antebellum South.
To which I respond:
Perhaps we should ask the leaders of the noble antebellum and South – and the secession movement -- what they thought was the cause of the war. A quick review of the primary sources created by the state legislatures of the time finds that the people who led the Confederacy had a very clear idea of what they were fighting for.
South Carolina’s Secession Ordinance is one long litany about the wrongs of the abolitionists – a conscious emulation of the Declaration of Independence’s indictment of the George III. Read it yourself at: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
South Carolina was not unique. Other ordinances of secession, while not as longwinded, also indicate that slavery was the central cause of the war. Georgia’s declaration of the reasons for secession says:
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”
Mississippi concurred:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.”
Texas also knew what the war was about, starting their diatribe against abolitionist “incitement” with:
“She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”
If the primary documents are so clear, why are we still having this discussion?
1) I like to stir up trouble.
2) I was curious to see if any of the people who discount the role of slavery could come up with anything.
Update 2/15/05:
While Libertarian Girl has never read my post, she seems to agree with Smallholder. Her Readers do not. Especially not Old Blind Dog or The Unabrewer or the LCD.
I'm still just watching. :-)
Yet Another Update:
Back on Sunday, Merc's Place had yet another take on the same issue.
The Following Post was originally posted way back on September 14, 2004. Soon after I posted it, Naked Villainy's Smallholder emailed a response to me which I thought was very thoughtful response, which I chose to add to the post. At the end of this post you'll see today's update.
This post is going to be a bit different for me. I want to ask a question of those who read my blog, and let the real meat of this post be in the comments.
As anyone who read my post on books will know, my interest in the American Civil War has been piqued only in the past ten years or so. Growing up in a portion of the country where no battles were fought, from which no regiments were sent to fight, a part of the country that was in its infancy when the war was being fought, it never had the personal impact on my heritage it does for easterners, not until you start learning about it on your own.
One of the issues that interests me most is the issue of the causes of the war. This is a source of great debate anmong historians, I do not as of yet have a concrete opinion on this. I am aware of the issues of Federal power vs. States rights, the sanctity of the Union, and slavery. I am aware of how ones regional heritage affects ones views of these issues (if you live back east especially).
What I'm curious about is this: Let us assume for the moment that the issue of slavery was secondary, and that it only served to bring to a head the other issues. If that is the case, what, if any, domestic issue would have served to bring those issues to a head if the issue of slavery had not existed. In other words, if you are of the opinion that the country was a powder keg, and slavery was merely the fuse, then what other fuse could have touched off the powder keg if slavery had not?
I wait to be taught.
UPDATE:
Smallholder of Naked Villainy had quite a bit to say, and my comment section wouldn't hold it, so I have posted it here (as usual, I have a few replies to it of my own, in italics):
First of all, the issue is NOT a source of great debate between historians. I am unaware of a single professional, peer-reviewed historian working today who challenges the contention that the war was against slavery.
Granted. Most of the people I hear spouting the "States Rights" issue today are southerners and amateur historians (nothing wrong with that, that's the best I can claim for myself, as well).
There were some historians writing after the war -- “The Lost Cause” school who focused on other issues and there were several historians who wrote about the provocations of the North when viewing the world in a post-World War One light.
Many Sons of the Confederacy would like to obscure the issue because it is hard to realize that grandpappy fought for an evil cause. But the circumlocutions of the amateurs don’t unmake the reality of history.
The states rights issue is not the real issue; states rights, except perhaps for George Mason, has rarely been an end in itself; American history is replete with examples of the states’ relationship to the federal government being used as a fig-leaf to hide real motivations.
James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution insisted on ratification by conventions of the PEOPLE of the states rather than ratification by state legislatures precisely to avoid the use of state prerogative to void the will of the national government – they met in Philadelphia to replace a government rendered impotent by state prerogative.
But James Madison and his mentor Tom Jefferson were more than willing to revive the corpse of states’ rights when the Alien and Sedition Acts threatened their political party. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which awakened states rights, were very much a partisan political calculation. That partisanship can also be seen as sectional since the South heavily supported the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists were heavily supported by Northern mercantile interests.
The Democratic-Republican support of states’ rights bit them in the rear when the Northern states came to believe that they had nothing to gain and everything to lose from the war of 1812 and threatened (vaguely) secession at the Hartford Convention.
The issue of states rights popped up again when Georgia (with a wink and a nod from President Jackson) refused to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision on Cherokee removal. President Jackson wasn’t so indulgent when South Carolina nullified the Tariff of 1832, threatening military enforcement.
As the calls for abolition began to gather momentum in the North and the South’s peculiar institution became more and more entrenched socially, politically, and religiously, the South did try to use the concept of state’s rights to protect African enslavement. But it was a means, not an end. When federal power seemed likely to promote slavery, the South was eager to renounce the concept of states rights.
Examples of Southern support of federal supremacy can be seen at the outrage generated when Northern governors were reluctant to send funds and state militiamen to prosecute the Slavocracy’s land grab against Mexico in 1846.
I'm not the only one who noticed that, eh?
Southerners certainly supported federal supremacy when Roger Taney ruled that states did not have the right to outlaw slavery within their own boundaries, opening the entire union to legal slavery in the Dred Scott decision.
Southerners certainly supported federal supremacy when many Northern states sought to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law.
So states’ rights, while certainly discussed – and I know the Southern partisans are turning to old Army of Northern Virginia Newsletters to find quotes about their hero’s dedication to abstract legal principle – were used only with the intent of advancing the South’s real cause: the protection of perpetual bondage.
In other words, the rank and file soldiers of the Confederacy may have believed that State's Rights is what they were fighting for, but the real root cause really was slavery?
But I’m unlikely to convince anyone who proudly flies the Confederate flag with these examples. They will say a resident of Wisconsin is only trying to blacken the reputation of the noble antebellum South.
To which I respond:
Perhaps we should ask the leaders of the noble antebellum and South – and the secession movement -- what they thought was the cause of the war. A quick review of the primary sources created by the state legislatures of the time finds that the people who led the Confederacy had a very clear idea of what they were fighting for.
South Carolina’s Secession Ordinance is one long litany about the wrongs of the abolitionists – a conscious emulation of the Declaration of Independence’s indictment of the George III. Read it yourself at: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
South Carolina was not unique. Other ordinances of secession, while not as longwinded, also indicate that slavery was the central cause of the war. Georgia’s declaration of the reasons for secession says:
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”
Mississippi concurred:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.”
Texas also knew what the war was about, starting their diatribe against abolitionist “incitement” with:
“She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”
If the primary documents are so clear, why are we still having this discussion?
1) I like to stir up trouble.
2) I was curious to see if any of the people who discount the role of slavery could come up with anything.
Update 2/15/05:
While Libertarian Girl has never read my post, she seems to agree with Smallholder. Her Readers do not. Especially not Old Blind Dog or The Unabrewer or the LCD.
I'm still just watching. :-)
Yet Another Update:
Back on Sunday, Merc's Place had yet another take on the same issue.
Update on the Vulturette
I just got off the phone with Vulture 6, who's at the hospital with the Vulturette. Tanya got out of surgery at 3am this morning, and she's doing well. Her femur was pretty much shattered right above her knee. There were ten large bone fragments and numerous smaller fragments that had to be repaired. She now has several pins holding the bones together, and a steel plate running up the length of her femur.
Brian and I will try to post updates as we get them.
-Darth Apathy
Brian and I will try to post updates as we get them.
-Darth Apathy
Recipe of the Week
While I was off for a week, I did manage to develop a good recipe. I thought I'd share it with all of you.
A bit of background is in order. A week or so before TFR went into the hospital, we had made homemade pizza. One of my favorite pizza toppings is linguicia, a spicy, cooked Portuguese sausage that is sliced or shredded and compliments pepperoni well. Unfortunately, it doesn't like me as well as I like it, especially on pizza, so I have to be sparing with it. I had purchased some for the pizza, but was only able to use half of it. Here's what I did with the extra link. I'm sure you could also use anadouille or Italian Sausage, maybe even kielbasa:
UPDATE:
I had to correct one part of the recipe. After the herbs and broth are added, bring to a boil, reduce heat, THEN simmer, THEN salt and pepper to taste.
Brian's Sausage Soup
1/2 lb Linguicia, sliced or shredded
1 medium onion, chopped
1 cup sliced baby carrots
1/2 cup chopped celery, leaves included
1 12 oz beer (I used a Hefeweizen, any blonde or amber colored beer should do)
1 large or 2 medium russet potato(s), diced but not peeled (usually I rinse potatoes when I dice them. DO NOT RINSE the potato for this recipe!*)
2 cups chicken broth or stock
1 can stewed tomatoes
1 bay leaf
1/4 tsp. basil
1/4 tsp. oregano
salt
pepper
in a small soup pot, heat a tablespoon of olive oil on medium heat. Brown the sausage, then remove to drain on a plate covered with a paper towel. Sautee the onions, celery, and carrots until the onions are clear and the vegetables are sweating. Remove and drain over the top of the sausage. Add another tablespoon of oil to the pot, cook the potatoes until brown. Remove the potatoes and drain with the sausage and vegetables. Deglaze the pot with the beer. Add the cooked ingredients back to the pot, along with the broth, tomatoes, and herbs. bring to a boil, reduce heat, simmer 20 minutes. Salt and pepper to taste. makes 4-6 servings.
*The reason I don't rinse the potatoes for this recipe is because the excess starch makes an excellent thickening agent.
A bit of background is in order. A week or so before TFR went into the hospital, we had made homemade pizza. One of my favorite pizza toppings is linguicia, a spicy, cooked Portuguese sausage that is sliced or shredded and compliments pepperoni well. Unfortunately, it doesn't like me as well as I like it, especially on pizza, so I have to be sparing with it. I had purchased some for the pizza, but was only able to use half of it. Here's what I did with the extra link. I'm sure you could also use anadouille or Italian Sausage, maybe even kielbasa:
UPDATE:
I had to correct one part of the recipe. After the herbs and broth are added, bring to a boil, reduce heat, THEN simmer, THEN salt and pepper to taste.
Brian's Sausage Soup
1/2 lb Linguicia, sliced or shredded
1 medium onion, chopped
1 cup sliced baby carrots
1/2 cup chopped celery, leaves included
1 12 oz beer (I used a Hefeweizen, any blonde or amber colored beer should do)
1 large or 2 medium russet potato(s), diced but not peeled (usually I rinse potatoes when I dice them. DO NOT RINSE the potato for this recipe!*)
2 cups chicken broth or stock
1 can stewed tomatoes
1 bay leaf
1/4 tsp. basil
1/4 tsp. oregano
salt
pepper
in a small soup pot, heat a tablespoon of olive oil on medium heat. Brown the sausage, then remove to drain on a plate covered with a paper towel. Sautee the onions, celery, and carrots until the onions are clear and the vegetables are sweating. Remove and drain over the top of the sausage. Add another tablespoon of oil to the pot, cook the potatoes until brown. Remove the potatoes and drain with the sausage and vegetables. Deglaze the pot with the beer. Add the cooked ingredients back to the pot, along with the broth, tomatoes, and herbs. bring to a boil, reduce heat, simmer 20 minutes. Salt and pepper to taste. makes 4-6 servings.
*The reason I don't rinse the potatoes for this recipe is because the excess starch makes an excellent thickening agent.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Huh?
So I go off-radar for a week, and miss an entire Blog firestorm, and am left asking just one question:
Who the Hell is Jeff Gannon?????
Who the Hell is Jeff Gannon?????
Friend in Need
Please keep in prayer my friend Scott, AKA Vulture 6 of Vultures Row. Yesterday he and Mrs. Vulture were involved in an 8-car pileup in Houston. V6 is sore but otherwise OK. Mrs. Vulture suffered a broken leg and is undergoing surgery today. Please remember them both in your prayers and best wishes.
If That Ain't Love I Don't Know What Is
A few thoughts percolated to the surface as I watched the Grammies last night.
I am an unabashed fan of the Late Janis Joplin. I know, I know, her music was intimately connected to a culture with which I have quite a few issues. Nonetheless, she was a soulful singer who ripped open her chest and exposed her heart to all of us with every song she sung. Having said that, I must say that last night's tribute to her was, at least for me, a mixed bag. Joss Stone is a talented young artist, and she tried valiantly to recreate the Joplin feel with the unkempt hair, bare feet, and facial expressions. But her vocals lacked the conviction and raw power of Janis. It was disappointing. On the other hand, Melissa Etheridge really did "Take Another Piece of My Heart" justice, with her growly, passionate belting out of the song.
I was pleased that Loretta Lynn won Best Country Album of the year. Least of all because the #1 hit from her album is about my home state. Most of all because she's lived the life, and sings from her own experience. That's the beauty of the singer-songwriter. Furthermore, I was amused to watch theinteraction between her and her collaborator on the Album, Jack White of the White Stripes. I don't know if it was his own upbringing or training gained working on the album, but the Detroit punk rocker sounded like a real country boy, his entire vocabulary in response to her consisteing of two words: "Yes Ma'am".
Despite the fact I'm glad he lost to Lynn, I was moved by the message of Tim McGraw's song "Live like you were dying". It's good advice for all of us.
I loved the focus on jazz, and Queen Latifah's performance was great, but her backup dancers' moves seemed a little ummm.... "modern" for the song she sang.
Again, with regards to tributes, Ray Charles definitely deserved it. If he hadn't already been one of my all time favorites, his place in my heart would have been sealed when TFR and I went and saw Ray the night her water broke.
After watching Green Day's acceptance speech for Best Rock Album (or something), I've decided that the title of their album definitely backfired on them.
Kanye West's acceptance speech, on the other hand, was quite refreshing. That's a lot of wisdom for such a young man.
I stopped watching the awards after hour 1.75 or so of 3, some entertaining performances, but after a while you reach sensory overload.
I am an unabashed fan of the Late Janis Joplin. I know, I know, her music was intimately connected to a culture with which I have quite a few issues. Nonetheless, she was a soulful singer who ripped open her chest and exposed her heart to all of us with every song she sung. Having said that, I must say that last night's tribute to her was, at least for me, a mixed bag. Joss Stone is a talented young artist, and she tried valiantly to recreate the Joplin feel with the unkempt hair, bare feet, and facial expressions. But her vocals lacked the conviction and raw power of Janis. It was disappointing. On the other hand, Melissa Etheridge really did "Take Another Piece of My Heart" justice, with her growly, passionate belting out of the song.
I was pleased that Loretta Lynn won Best Country Album of the year. Least of all because the #1 hit from her album is about my home state. Most of all because she's lived the life, and sings from her own experience. That's the beauty of the singer-songwriter. Furthermore, I was amused to watch theinteraction between her and her collaborator on the Album, Jack White of the White Stripes. I don't know if it was his own upbringing or training gained working on the album, but the Detroit punk rocker sounded like a real country boy, his entire vocabulary in response to her consisteing of two words: "Yes Ma'am".
Despite the fact I'm glad he lost to Lynn, I was moved by the message of Tim McGraw's song "Live like you were dying". It's good advice for all of us.
I loved the focus on jazz, and Queen Latifah's performance was great, but her backup dancers' moves seemed a little ummm.... "modern" for the song she sang.
Again, with regards to tributes, Ray Charles definitely deserved it. If he hadn't already been one of my all time favorites, his place in my heart would have been sealed when TFR and I went and saw Ray the night her water broke.
After watching Green Day's acceptance speech for Best Rock Album (or something), I've decided that the title of their album definitely backfired on them.
Kanye West's acceptance speech, on the other hand, was quite refreshing. That's a lot of wisdom for such a young man.
I stopped watching the awards after hour 1.75 or so of 3, some entertaining performances, but after a while you reach sensory overload.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)