Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (22807)	7/20/2003 11:15:49 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The Founders and the Fedayeen ______________________________ by Mary Beth Norton Published on Saturday, July 19, 2003 by the New York Times When questioned about the difficulties American forces are having in rebuilding Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has taken to giving a history lesson. Several times he has spoken of another country in "chaos and confusion" during a period characterized by "looting, crime, mobs storming buildings, breakdown of government structures and institutions that maintained civil order, rampant inflation caused by the lack of a stable currency, supporters of the former regime roaming the streets . . ." This picture should seem familiar to Americans, he says, because it is based on "historians' descriptions of the conditions here in America in 1783." Well, as someone who has spent three decades teaching and writing about that era, I recognize very little of the postrevolutionary United States in Mr. Rumsfeld's depiction. First, the factual problems. His insistence that the new nation had to deal with roving loyalists, "many of whom had fought against the Continental Army," is simply not true. Virtually every person who publicly took sides against the Revolution left with the evacuating British forces in 1782 and 1783, and not just because they feared (with reason) for their safety. Most wanted no part of an independent United States. More than 100,000 refugees ended up in the West Indies, Canada or Britain itself. Nor did a "breakdown of government structures" lead to widespread theft and looting. Historians have uncovered no evidence of a crime wave in the 1780's; states and localities never descended into chaos. The new states had all drafted constitutions by mid-1777 under orders from the Second Continental Congress. By the early 1780's some of those governments were being reorganized, but they never ceased to function. Further, Mr. Rumsfeld seems to have conflated the problem of inflation during the war itself — when the Continental currency depreciated to worthlessness by 1780 — with postwar circumstances, when the states and national government began to get their finances under control well before the Constitution was drafted. At least Mr. Rumsfeld is not one of those "revisionist historians" his boss, President Bush, has derided. In fact, the basic interpretation of American history he advances is so ancient it creaks. The idea that America under the Articles of Confederation (from 1781 to 1788) was a time of strife and ineffectual government was first put forward in the 18th century by supporters of the Constitution. It was perpetuated by 19th-century historians who wanted to portray the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as disinterested saviors of the nation. Historians initially challenged this dismal view of the 1780's early in the 20th century, and it has essentially been dead for at least 50 years. There was, it is true, one major instance of violence in the Confederation years: Shays' Rebellion in western Massachusetts in late 1786 and early 1787. As Mr. Rumsfeld points out, Shaysite mobs did attack courthouses and an armed force assaulted an armory in search of guns and ammunition. But they were not challenging the new nation — they were opposed only to the harsh taxation and land-foreclosure policies in Massachusetts. The rebels (some of whom had served in the revolutionary forces) saw themselves as protecting "the liberties or properties of the people." Massachusetts rather easily put down the Shaysites, but the legislature then quietly acceded to most of their demands. Nothing in the incident seems comparable to events in Iraq. This is not to say that the government under the Articles of Confederation was perfect or even adequate. It had many flaws — most notably, lack of national authority over commerce and taxation. The Constitution was designed to correct those flaws. So today's historical consensus views the Confederation period not as a time of chaotic confusion but rather as a stumbling first attempt to create a viable national government for what had been 13 separate colonies. Thus even if one ignores Mr. Rumsfeld's factual errors, his analogy with today's Iraq seems to hold little water. For one, before independence, the American colonies had no unified government: the Revolution and its aftermath created the nation. Prewar Iraq, on the other hand, had a highly centralized economy and government, which has now collapsed. The United States won its war. Iraq lost. Iraqis must now create a new polity under the supervision of an occupying power. There was no British Paul Bremer sitting in Philadelphia and telling us what to do in the 1780's. Most important, perhaps, Americans in the 1780's had a tradition of self-governance and civil society stretching back more than 150 years, to the foundation of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1619 and continuing within the individual states. Under Saddam Hussein, any semblance of civil society in Iraq was ruthlessly suppressed for decades. As part of his education package, President Bush has proposed an initiative to improve the teaching of American history in the public schools. I wonder if his secretary of defense might benefit from a refresher on the revolutionary era. _______________________ Mary Beth Norton, a professor of American history at Cornell University, is author of "In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company commondreams.org

To: lurqer who wrote (22807)	7/21/2003 12:08:34 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Un peacekeepers who speak Arabic would go a long way toward quelling anti-American resentment and save the lives of our troops. Think of the troops. They are victims of mismanagement by the higher-ups making policy. In this acse it's similar to Vietnam, though we're very early in the game. Everyone knows we're stuck in Iraq now. For years. It's a quagmire. All for oil and trumped-up "imminent threat" claims.

To: lurqer who wrote (22807)	7/21/2003 1:03:31 AM
From: NOW	Respond to of 89467

"I know that the figures about productivity and inflation are doctored, butchered. They are a sham! A total sham! I just told you commodities are up 80% in the last four or five years. And yet, if you listen to the US government, they will tell you there is no price increases. They will tell you that the price of oil is down. You know what? In November they said the price of heating oil went down 11%. Get out the numbers that they told you. I called them up and said, “How can it be down 11%, The Wall Street Journal said it is up 25%. My oil man says it is up over 25%.” How can you say that?" But the United States government reported in November 2002, the price of heating oil was down 11% and therefore there was no price inflation in that month. DANIEL YERGIN: So you think that someone there calling up and saying, “Hey, fake the numbers, Joe.” JIM ROGERS: I know! I have had BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] guys write me and say, “Look, we were told that we have to smooth out the numbers.” I know they are faking the numbers. And so does the rest of the world. 35:45 MARC FABER: Yes, and a lot of economic adjustments and so forth. And also, it is measured on a 40-hours week. If you work 41 hours or just a half an hour longer, it makes a huge difference on productivity numbers. And a lot of people work from their homes so that is not in the figures. In the service economy, lots of people work at night and so forth. DANIEL YERGIN: So, do you think the GDP numbers are faked too? JIM ROGERS: I know they are faked! The whole thing is faked. financialsense.com