|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 10, 2015 13:06:50 GMT -5
Doesn't change the fact that Brady is the best quarterback.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 10, 2015 13:12:35 GMT -5
I've been trying to come up with material causes for the United States' last 15 years of war in the Middle East. Or Vietnam, for that matter. Food? Water? Trade? Tariffs? Territory?
We didn't have a material cause to enter WWI, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 10, 2015 13:19:11 GMT -5
I would pick Brady as the greatest QB (he has achieved over a long span with many different teammates).
I would pick Rodgers for the Vikings (if I could magic wand him over).
I would pick Peyton for making the best commercials (he is a good guy).
I would pick Bret Favre as my favorite (man, was he fun to watch).
I would pick Fran Tarkenton as being the greatest QB who never gets mentioned as being the greatest QB. (he was a magician).
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 10, 2015 13:31:55 GMT -5
epaul:
If one is going to try to distill down to its essence a complicated subject, I think that comes as close as it can be done. Another way of putting it (echo of Doug here): the most immediate cause was Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union, even if it meant going to war - and what an agonizing decision that must have been. He could have just let secession happen, allow those who voluntarily joined the Union to leave in peace. It would be a different world from today's, for better or worse, but we would have been spared that carnage. Most scholars agree that slavery inevitably would have collapsed all by itself, though it might have taken many years.
The other motive that I've seen mentioned only by inference here (edit: Russell comes closest) was the one that, to my mind, drives all politics in the final analysis: economic self-interest. It made little difference to the industrial North if slavery were abolished. It would (and did) destroy the economy of the South, at least for a time.
As a Southerner, I'm glad we are still united. And I believe slavery is an indelible stain on our history. Thomas Jefferson saw it in equally stark terms. ("I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just....") And we are still paying the price.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 10, 2015 13:43:29 GMT -5
Doesn't change the fact that Brady is the best quarterback. Johnny U
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 10, 2015 13:47:57 GMT -5
Post slavery in the south was a better economic model than slavery (for the large land owners that were slave owners). Share croppers replaced slaves producing with out the overhead.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 10, 2015 13:57:37 GMT -5
I've been trying to come up with material causes for the United States' last 15 years of war in the Middle East. Or Vietnam, for that matter. Food? Water? Trade? Tariffs? Territory? We didn't have a material cause to enter WWI, for that matter.
The claim that we're in the Middle East for economic gain - oil is often mentioned - is a shibboleth, in my opinion. We are there because the country bought John F. Kennedy's idea in his inaugural address that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." This altruistic idealism no doubt had its base in the belief that a democratic world would be inherently more stable and thus more economically viable. In any case it was a repudiation of the pragmatism of earlier American governments that, for example, had us supporting brutal dictators if their rule was consistent with our interests. The Kennedy philosophy (embraced by a whole subset of liberal Democrats who became the base for the Neocon movement) has set the tone for our foreign policy right up until the current day. Only now are we finally realizing that we can't bring the rule of democracy to a world that doesn't seem to want it. Chief case in point: it turns out that Saddam Hussein, who famously killed his own people and lied about having WMDs to keep his equally cut-throat neighbors in line, was the keystone of Mideast geopolitics, the rock that kept the region from falling apart, as it is now. It's taken us a long time to figure this out. Maybe now we go back to propping up brutal dictators, and liking it.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 10, 2015 13:59:20 GMT -5
We'll have to look at Brady's career after it ends. He says he'll quit when he sucks. Hindsight is the best sight in these cases. For now, he still has things to prove to the world based upon the chip still on his shoulder from the late draft pick.
I don't mean to start anything in any way here but want to tell Jim that I'm glad he has had occasion to rethink some things and recognized that some of his beliefs were probably tinted with the glare of hindsight or looking at historical events while applying modern assumptions. In some thread a couple of weeks ago, Russell even said something similar about something he said not being fair really. I think that in both cases, that's progress, not to be confused with progressiveism. Question everything but do it in context.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 10, 2015 14:37:11 GMT -5
Better than the chicken and egg...
A sliver can lead to an infection. However great the pain of the sliver, it is the infection that threatens the life of the body. And it is the infection that needs to be addressed if body is to continue. The sliver can be removed later.
Slavery was the sliver. Slavery triggered a set of conditions that led to the life-threatening infection, secession.
It can be argued that the cure was worse than the disease. We know the cost of the cure, we don't know the end result of the infection if not cured.
And we know that slivers fester.
And if Fran Tarkenton had won two Super Bowls (and he could have had the football gods not conspired against him) he would be very much in the thick of the nonsense "who is the greatest" debate.
(Joe Namath is the greatest quarterback ever to model pantyhose and full furs. And Kenny "the Snake" Stabler is best left-handed quarterback ever and was probably as great as any if not for the fickle finger of fate.)
Sports fans debate greatness for fun, but there is no "greatest". There are a bunch of great ones. (though Brady has a good argument for having achieved the most success in a career, a real good argument, especially considering that he doesn't even appear close to being done.)
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 10, 2015 14:46:10 GMT -5
I don't mean to start anything in any way here but want to tell Jim that I'm glad he has had occasion to rethink some things and recognized that some of his beliefs were probably tinted with the glare of hindsight or looking at historical events while applying modern assumptions. In some thread a couple of weeks ago, Russell even said something similar about something he said not being fair really. I think that in both cases, that's progress, not to be confused with progressiveism. Question everything but do it in context. No offense taken, and in general, I do tend to question everything. To a fault, sometimes. A guy I used to work with, a fellow salesperson, asked me once over a beer why I kept trying to reinvent the wheel. I sometimes envied and sometimes mocked his tendency in sales to take something at face value and run with it. Forever. Once he got an idea down, he'd stick with it. He was unshakeable in his beliefs. And he sometimes envied, sometimes mocked my tendency to rethink things which sometimes led to new insights and other times caused me to lose the "formula." When it comes to sales, his tendencies were better. As far as life in general, I like mine better. And I won't mention it's also how this former conservative got to be a liberal. But more on rethinking things in the next post.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 10, 2015 15:07:50 GMT -5
I listened to the Civil War lecture again while walking Lily. And since it's only 29 minutes long, I listened to it twice. I learned a few things:
1. I have to be careful with audios. I already knew that my mind tends to drift while listening to audio books. That's why I have trouble following a lot of fiction. About 90% of what I listen to is nonfiction because I get tired of rewinding trying to figure out where I lost the thread with fiction. With a lot of nonfiction I just don't care. If I lose track I just pick up the narrative again when I hear something that catches my interest. If it's something I'm interested in and I lose track, then and only then do I go back and try to find the point where I started to drift off. But in listening to this lecture again I learned that sometimes I drift off and don't realize that I did, which can produce some weird results when pieced back together in my memory.
2. A major thrust of this series is historiography, the study of history. Throughout the book the professor is quoting and paraphrasing earlier historians, then offering his own opinions and/or summations. It turns out that I was attributing what others have said to the professor, when what the professor was saying was that they had only part of the story.
3. Slavery caused the Civil War. Slavery was a point of conflict between north and south since colonial days. There were many other conflicts including social, cultural, intellectual, moral, economic and ideological differences. Those conflicts led to conspiracy theories and distrust. The south thought the north wanted to end all slavery while the north thought the south wanted to expand slavery into the north. States rights were nothing more than a way to rephrase the real issue. Today we think of the south when we hear "states rights," but New England was griping about states rights before the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. Over the last 150 years those non-slavery conflicts have been proposed as the main cause of the Civil War, but the common thread running through all of them was slavery. Slavery caused the Civil War.
There. I'm done. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If I change my mind again I will be forced to consider a career in politics.
|
|