Mlle. Zabzie

Members
  • Content count

    5,391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mlle. Zabzie

  • Rank
    Well-Informed Doorstop
  • Birthday 08/25/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

7,808 profile views
  1. Well, and I also think that it is very unlikely that England would have intervened, at the end of the day, given the politics and policies of the time, particularly the dependence on grain imported from the US. Maybe if Lee had won at Antietam. Maybe. But McLellan fought that battle about as poorly as one could imagine, without his whole strength and Lee still had to withdraw. Also, Werthead's point is the right one. The Union and Lincoln didn't necessarily want to burn it all to the ground at the beginning. Everything was much more fluid at the beginning. Finally, I don't think that the guerilla war, wear out the antagonist strategy that worked in the Revolutionary war would have worked. There weren't the same distance issues. There weren't the same geopolitical forces, unless there is an invasion from Canada. Also, that kind of warfare really wasn't Lee's strength. Yeah - I think if he had somehow pulled off Antietam, but that would have been really hard for him.
  2. I think this is the thing that bugs me the most about this premise (sight unseen of course). Honestly, the South had a lot fewer people (particularly because a large part of the population was....forceably non-combatant (at least until the end). It also had the disadvantage of (i)a substantial portion of the conflict playing out in its territory (Antietam and Gettysburg aside), (ii) a substantially underdeveloped rail network, (iii) limited industry, particularly foundries, and limited ability to produce war materiel as a result, (iv) and a monoculture (whether tobacco, cotton, sugar or indigo) agriculture that was not focused on foodstuffs. While they did have a couple of truly excellent deepwater ports in the form of Charleston and New Orleans, those were quickly blockaded. So....you know, nothing is inevitable, and Lee was a good general, but actually, his tactical genius in set battles was almost his downfall.... Anyhow, whether it was 2 years or 10 years, I think you end up where you ended up.
  3. *hugs*. Def don't think you were overreacting.
  4. I mean, of course slavery could have survived into industrialization. That's more or less how Russia began its industrialization (though they abolished serfdom in 1861). Separately, betcha the premise is that Lee wins at Gettysburg and that's the moment. It's silly, but bet it is.
  5. Scene 1, Charleston South Carolina. Brothel. Lots of boobs. Old white men having a conversation complaining about falling profits for SLAVERINC with some light fondling on the side. You know they are bad guys because of their facial hair Scene 2, New York. Rally. No boobs yet. People are protesting the fact that the US hasn't defeated its Southern neighbor yet (seriously, like why not, given the economics of the whole thing, but I digress). We meet one of our heroines, leading the chants. We find out later that she has great boobs. Scene 3, Birmingham Alabama. We see slaves working in factories. Sucks to be them. We meet some more bad guys. They are looking at the slaves wondering if they would make good cannon fodder. Scene 4, San Francisco. We meet a confederate who has been admitted to Stanford. We know he is a confederate because he has facial hair. We know that he will be morally complex because he has great abs. Scene 5, Mississippi. Gratuitous plantation scene with some light torture and blood. Scene 6, New York (now the capital of the US): government people talking government things. Scene 7, Richmond: Ditto. Scene 8: Cliffhanger. There you go, first ep. Boobs, butts, abs, violence, and zero nuance. I'm going with pretty awful. But who knows.
  6. Have a magnificent birthday!
  7. I daresay part of the problem is that many peoples' first-hand experience with government in their lives is profoundly negative (whether DMV, cops, taxing authority, whatever). Even though there are plenty of indirect positive experiences (including use of roads, maybe schools, etc.), they don't overcome the impact of the bad experience.
  8. The answer to both of these is related. We have a federal system where the President is elected not by popular vote, but rather the electoral college. The electoral college gives disproportionate voting power in Presidential elections to rural, small state voters. It is what it is. Relatedly, while political gerrymandering has been going on since forever, and both parties have indulged, during the latest round of redistricting in 2010, the Republicans, who at that time controlled state houses in a lot of places, were able to redraw electoral district maps in ways that will make it quite difficult for Democrats to win in their states for some period of time (true story). The way that the districts were drawn was much more sophisticated than gerrymandering efforts in the past, using computer modeling and voter behavior data. There is actually a case on this going to the Supreme Court (re Wisconsin) and it will be interesting to see what will happen. I am not as sanguine that things will turn around quickly for Democrats. By ignoring state and local government in several places, they have allowed themselves to be put in a position where, even if they have a majority on an aggregate basis of voters in a particular state, the districts have been drawn in such a way that such voters' votes have been diluted/concentrated in a way that may keep them out of power for a generation.
  9. Right. Because I am far to the right of center of many on the board. But am probably a pinko as defined by a definitional "true conservative."
  10. I appreciate this While I am almost certainly right of you on the spectrum, I like to try to be (1) logically and internally consistent, (2) realistic about the real world, (3) cognizant of macro impacts and (4) someone with an ethical compass. Oh, and contrary to popular belief and/or opposing counsel, I have both a heart and a conscience.
  11. Well exactly. The free rational actor with perfect information simply doesn't exist.
  12. I think that Rs probably do keep Congress in 2018. I don't see a real path otherwise. 2020....who knows. The American public is fickle....
  13. Congratulations!!!!
  14. Continuing in my role of synthetic conservativetm (this is fun), Actually, the bill isn't due. In fact, quite the opposite. The bill may be due in 2018, though I doubt it. Your quote of de Toqueville is, in fact, spot on. Though it is relatively simplistic, the recent pop-history White Trash goes into this rather more. There is a morality attached to poverty. Even worse, we have a long history of thinking of poverty as genetic. That is, one is poor because one's parents were poor, not because of the simple fact that one's parents were poor, but because one's parents' abilities are/were deficient, meaning that one is destined to poverty. I find this worse than the mere moral judgment. Well, precisely. Interestingly, Newton and Smith were near contemporaries (Newton died a couple of years after Smith was born). Waving one's (invisible) hands and saying "but free markets do better!" in response to commentary about modern economic transactions is about as useful as quoting Newton to respond to a question on quantum mechanics. Though OGE and I don't necessarily agree on everything (I'm confident that we don't), I do think we agree that the economy is far to complicated and sophisticated to explain through micro 101 supply/demand curves and invisible hands. The libertarian fantasy is just that - a fantasy. How the government should behave as an economic actor is another question (and that's where OGE and I probably have some daylight between us, but you know, discussion is interesting :)), but that it is and must be an economic actor of a relatively mammoth size in order for a society as complex as ours to run seems to me almost without question.
  15. Well, I'm not entirely so sure about this. I do think that the Republicans have gotten themselves into an ideological muddle with the ACA. Here is, an interpretation of what someone might say from the other side (rather than "I just want all the poors to die already")*: 1. There is a discussion to be had as to what, if any, healthcare services the government should provide. Since the 1960s, we have answered that with "healthcare for the very poor" and "healthcare for the elderly." Other developed nations have answered that question differently, but we'll come back to that. 2. The discussion has moved over time to whether the government should be providing more in the terms of healthcare services. The answer provided by the ACA was that the government should compel insurance for healthcare for all (other than the poor, who would still be covered as above), but not healthcare services itself. That is, that the government should insert itself into the marketplace for insurance in the first instance, rather than for healthcare, except as described above. This "market based" solution, which has government interfering in a market secondary to the service in question was originally a conservative idea, as has been pointed out many times here. The ACA did not actually provide health care. In fact, I think that is one of the reasons why it was so well-hated. It greatly expanded access to care because it made acute care more affordable, but it was far from the government itself providing the care. But I think some people conflated the ACA with something other than insurance (which is supposed to protect against the catastrophic). 3. This country for better or for worse, has two things operating here. The first is that we have a federal system (which, as a New York resident, I am enjoying very much right this short second, thank you very much). That means that there are at best obstacles to fully functional universal care being provided by the federal government. The second is a historic distrust of the federal government. There are plenty of people who, rightly or wrongly, think that giving the federal government monopolistic type power over healthcare for all but the very wealthy is a bad idea and that such power can (and would be) abused. Maybe more atavistically, such folks believe that giving a centralized government that sort of power (a required dependency on government) makes them "less free." Many of these same people would happily take the government provided services, btw, but dislike that it isn't couched as their own idea. Acknowledged that the logic leap is a bit much. 4. There is a view that leaving catastrophic health care to charity for those who don't have insurance, is in fact meet and just, and a more pure expression of market forces and acts of charity. That is, there are the poor and the deserving poor, and it is only the latter that should get help from the rest of us. (For a moment, lapsing back to me, I have always found the concept of "deserving poor" very hard to reconcile with my own (relatively Christian) ethics, because honestly, who am I to judge? Also have never found anyone who can defend, other than very illogically, why their judgment of who deserves is better than anyone elses, and why they are better than anyone else at discerning truth in appeals for help). 5. Also, I think the fact that "it works really well in other countries" isn't a helpful argument (though it should be). American exceptionalism is too deeply ingrained in culture. So many believe that we are different and that the solution won't work here as it does other places for [insert reason]. 6. Which brings me back to the first point. I think many conservatives wish to have the discussion as to whether healthcare should be a public good at all. I think many of their constituents already believe that it is/should be and don't understand why they don't get coverage. Yet, they are marketed that the various solutions that do provide government sponsored healthcare make them less free...which leads to a muddle..... *The below does not necessarily represent my own opinion, just more condensing things I have heard from others.