Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was going to say that it's like a Russian version of Pitcairn Island, but upon closer inspection that analogy doesn't work. Maybe it's more similar to the Japanese soldier who didn't know WWII ended and kept fighting for another 30 years.
I guess that things seem pretty bleak right now for us. True, Obama didn't have a supermajority, but the fact that his track record on the economy is rather weak and he was still voted in over a superior candidate makes me really wonder about people in general. Honestly, at this point I kind of think that the West is lost as a whole. I'm talking primarily about culture, but as I think there's a correlation between culture and economic/political achievement. Sometimes I think that the only thing that can save America and/or the west is a large-scale war/catastrophe which shakes people to their very foundations. These kinds of things seem to force people to realize what is important and what is not. It forces governments to come to terms with reality. I know I keep coming back to the issue of free government-mandated birth control (perhaps because it's so absurd to me) but in the case of a significant war, would a nation really feel compelled to pay for that, or force businesses to pay for it, for the citizens? Or would there be an expectation that people have free will, and if they want to avoid pregnancy or STDs they should simply exercise self control and avoid activities which could lead to them? Perhaps in time of war, the expectation would be that if people play with fire, they get burned; if they want to have a promiscuous lifestyle, they must live with the associated risk. That would be a free way of solving the problem and would not place an extra expense on businesses/government which would be in need of cutting costs. But this kind of thinking is foreign to our government today because we live not according to reality, but according to the values of a distorted culture.Anyway, that's my two cents. I realize I sound dour.....
Hopefully they'll show a full view of the newly-completed portions, side by side with the original Tapestry. It's probably the greatest single work of art from the time of William the Conqueror, but the problem with it is that it's so long it's hard to think about except in individual pieces. It's not like people can appreciated it in the same way they can appreciate the Laocoon or the Mona Lisa.
I think that #1 is a fight of (wo)man against nature. Women want to be able to work jobs just the same as their male counterparts, but also want to have kids when they want. The two are not always compatible. While it may look like man has the upper hand in the short term, nature typically has its way in the end.
Given that Obama won less than half of the states in November, what makes you think they could get enough votes to hijack a CC? If anything, conservatives could get their ideas passed more easier than could the left.
What makes me think that? The fact that Obama won the election. The fact that the people decided that they would rather have a community organizer guide the country out of the worst recession in a generation rather than a successful businessman and governor. The fact that enough people think that free birth control is somehow more important than fundamental things like a good economy. That kind of made me realize that lunacy is kind of in control.
Scout, would you be willing to have a CC called and have it hijacked by forces which are intent on enshrining leftist ideology into the law of the land? That could turn America into something that is utterly foreign to what we know today.
That's a great American success story – an individual with an idea, taking risk, and having determination to see it through even when things don't go his way.
We don't want or need a constitutional convention. The only thing that can happen is the Constitution will get irrevocably damaged. The likely outcome is that the Constitution would be amended to water down its authority and give more power to the federal government than take anything away.
That is my fear as well. Perhaps the only thing saving us from ruin as it is are the provisions in the Constitution, and I could see those getting thrown away if modern liberals got their way with things.Don't get me wrong - there are certain things in the Constitution which could have been explained in greater detail (e.g. the Establishment Clause, Commerce Clause) which would have helped us avoid problems in interpretation we have now.As far as federal vs. state power is concerned, if SCOTUS interpreted the Commerce Clause more narrowly, we could see a restoration of States' right. Of course, this is not something we can expect given the Obama appointments (and others) on the bench now.
But what about the idea of the States being more or less a commonwealth, unified in spirit, and in practice at a minimal level through the federal government. Since it would not be “perpetual and unbreakable”, the federal government would be set in place “on top of” the existing (and more permanent) union of the States.It seems like this system would echo more of a European-style cooperation of nations than what we currently have in the U.S. I think this is a very interesting idea, and more in line with what the Founders had probably envisioned, though I admit I have not done the historical research to analyze the nuances of the original vision. However, it seems highly improbable to implement this today given the extensive (over)reach of the federal government. Although the federal government has assumed powers it probably should not have assumed, it has made provided for certain conveniences and standards of living that people would not easily forgo.As for the calling of a Constitutional Convention...I got an email not long ago which warned against this. It linked to a website where you can see the dangers of what this might entail here. Here's a part:
Based on further research into existing constitutional models, parts which are already being implemented, we believe that the government created by any new constitution will be divorced from both the bedrock philosophical moorings laid out in the Declaration of Independence and from the shackles imposed by the current constitution.
So basically, the message is that while the Constitution may currently be abused, the threat is there for even greater abuse through a modified Constitution.
What was it that Napoleon said? I'd rather face an army of lions led by a rabbit than an army of rabbits led by a lion...or something to that effect. Alexander was a lion of lions and his army would have followed him to hell if necessary just like the Army of Northern Virginia did Lee and the Carthaginians did Hannibal. Rome might have had the better "system" but if their generals could not command the undying loyalty and faith that the Greeks did with Alexander, they might not have fared too well. Alexander would have adapted and overcome his enemy with his tactical genius just like Hannibal did.
This is kind of what I was alluding to. I'm not sure the Macedonians/Hellenic armies would have been as successful sans Alexander, everything else being equal.Scout, did the Romans even use the articulated phalanx in the 330s B.C.? I have found a few sources (e.g. Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World (3000 B.C. to 500 A.D.): Equipment .../Rob S. Rice, Simon Anglim, et. al.) which say that it was the Macedonians who (seem to have) developed the articulated phalanx in the early third century B.C. as a response to the inherent weakness of the solid phalanx. This indicates, at the least, that post-Alexandrian generals knew the weakness of their main formation and were adapting their tactics through successive wars - something we can debate about whether Alexander had done had he met the Romans.As for the Romans, I have found a couple of sources (e.g. The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History/Pat Southern) which discuss what they used in the mid-fourth century B.C., as indicated by Livy (though his account, written several centuries later, has been doubted). The Roman formation of this time consisted of legions in three battle lines consisting of two to three troop types in each. This is the type of troop formation that has been suggested was used in the wars with the Samnites, meaning it is the formation Alexander would most likely have faced. Also of note is that this may have been a formation type tailored to hilly terrain, since it is said the Samnites did not want to fight on the plains. Whether this would have been effective against Alexander on a different terrain type is more of an open question.At the end of the day, though, I have no idea who would have won between Alexander and the Romans. You could be right, but it's an interesting question to ponder.
too bad it didn't go out during Beyonce
Now how incredible would that have been had it gone out and she were lip syncing. Milli Vanilli x 100!
Well, then, I still find it peculiar that they wanted to destroy the cult of a figure who is so closely identified with the USSR. As for what you point out, I am guessing that the “cult of personality” was a threat because it could be used by those who were at odds with the post-Stalin leaders. Crushing it would help remove internal division.
