Omar:I had a professor who occasionally used "what if" questions.  In time I learned they were of value--as well as often being interesting.Answering a "what if" question requires one to analyze historical events in order to predict the outcome of the hypothetical situation.  Vulture6's remarks about Lee benefiting from Northern Virgina's topography is an example of insights that can come from answers to "what if" questions. 

Omer not Omar, don't confuse pls...

Why PBS?  It is not propaganda, it is just news. Often it's Left-leaning, but not as much as MSNBC or CNN can be sometimes. PLus my granddaughter watches all those kids shows and plays educational games on pbs.org. These shows are far better than that other crap on regular TV.  Funding PBS can't be that big a chunk.There are bigger things to cut.  Why do they all fear cutting welfare benefits?  That's where they should concentrate, but I haven't heard that mentioned yet.

For Iulus Caesar the ends justified the means, subordinating institutional checks and balances in a quest for ?results.? Was the constitution of the republic broken? No matter, as long as constituents were satisfied ? by a bread dole, farms for veterans, or vast entertainments. Whatever goodies accrued to the rabble, however, the real object was to concentrate power in Caesar?s hands. It was therefore useful to dilute the senate, corrupt the people, massacre and plunder foreign nations, all for the aggrandizement of a single individual. Dickinson tells us that ?Caesar was preparing the way for his deification or something like it, yet many historians have found difficulty in attributing such an objective to a man of his bold and rationalistic spirit.? It is difficult indeed, in our own time, to account for the motives of men like Hitler or Lenin or Stalin. But there has always existed, in some men, a pathological desire for power and primacy. ?Like dictators of recent times,? wrote Dickinson, ?[Caesar] was anxious to clothe his position with a name that would be free from constitutional associations and would mark his supremacy as a complete break with the past.? Claiming to represent the people, or serve the cause of a ?higher history,? the dictator serves himself. Caesar destroyed the republic with no greater object than gratifying his own ego. ?The bent and temper of Caesar?s mind were clearly not congenial to broad ideas of economic or social welfare,? wrote Dickinson. It is of no account what Caesar promised. What is important, is what Caesar delivered !!!  

Rome started as a city-state, then a kingdom, a republic and an empire; finally the city of Rome itself wasn't what it was before : the centre of the world (Roma caput mundi) but other cities became as important as Rome ( Ravenna, Napoli and others) I think that a parallel can be made about Western civilization: not about one country in particular but as a whole set of values, religion and political systems. So when ppl are trying to compare a country to Rome, it's irrelevant. What are the US of A all alone (same for any western countries) ?

The Fall of Rome?http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9398000/9398261.stm

Let's play a game now.  When you see a popular phrase from history used in a news story today, link to it here.  For example, I just found this one:

"The dye has been cast in this election cycle - Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient," West said.

Black GOP candidate slams Obama for exploiting race

About your source: wasn't West charged with violating articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Or  processed through an Article 32 hearing in November 2003? Didn't he accept the judgment and retired with full benefits in the summer of 2004?http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/index.html Probably a mistake  ;D 

I just want to see elephants and rhinos with Kilimanjaro as a backdrop.

okay !

quote:    知己知彼，百戰不殆。 If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

Sun-Tzu, Part III (offensive strategy), # 31

😉

Sounds vaguely Marxist/Post-Modernist.  I assume you have a specific source for these snippets in mind?

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31;from  quote:     知己知彼，百戰不殆。 If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.