Overcast and Breezy ~
Feels like: 5°F
Thursday, Dec. 19, 2013
General ObservationsPosted Wednesday, February 2, 2011, at 6:13 PM
Michelle Bachmann has little to no clue of anything even remotely close to any knowledge of US History. The founding fathers never tried to end slavery. By the time slavery ended the founding fathers were long gone. There was not great movement during the Founding Era to free the slaves. So for Bachmann to state that the founding fathers fought to end slavery is either just a huge overstatement so she can illicit the founding fathers, she did not take the time to actually study the founding era to make sure her statement would have some basis in fact, or she just did not care, it sounded good so she used the statement. She is a politician after all.
Could someone please explain to me how requiring people to get health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional, but being required to have car insurance or pay a fine is not only constitutional but an accepted practice? Keep in mine, I am not, and never have been, a big fan of mandated insurance, but the argument for mandated health insurance being unconstitutional, yet mandated car insurance is constitutional is severely lacking.
I have no vested interest in the Super Bowl this year. The Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers. Great history with the two teams. Speaking of which, what does the "G" on the Green Bay helmet actually stand for? It should be a good game, but I am just not that interested in it.
I have not been paying that much attention to the situation in Egypt. It has gotten extremely dangerous and there will probably be a changing of the guard before the elections in September. The President should be keeping a close eye on the situation, but honestly the United States is in no position to be telling another government how to run their country, so for once it would be nice if the politicos would be quiet and just offer to help is help is asked for.
The term "activist judge" has come back into our vernacular again. Throughout the 00s the term was a running theme with politicos, the White House, and cable networks. This time around a person inside the White House used the term on her blog when she was talking about the judge in Florida who decided that all of the Health Care Law should be invalidated because he decided that one piece in it was unconstitutional. Fox News (and yes I was watching, I have no issues admitting when I watch Fox News) is taking a huge exception to this, Megyn Kelly especially. She had a huge problem with someone that she assumed had not formal training in the law, calling someone an activist judge. Apparently now it bothers her. Back in the day, when her cohorts were using that term on a nearly nightly basis, she did not have this same problem. Of course, when a judge is ruling on decisions in your favor you do not mind that judge, when they do not they are an activist judge.
The whole situation with health care law will not be settled anytime soon, and will probably be decided by the Supreme Court and not by Congress.
I said quite a while back that all revisionist history was bad. I was corrected by a poster and I would like to now clarify my statement. First though, I was wrong on my statement. Not all revisionist history is bad. There are levels. The revisionist history that occurs when historians look back through the documents and re-analyze history is perfectly acceptable. Many time, documents, letters, pamphlets, etc that were either missed or disregarded are given new light that tweak our understanding of historical events.
The other type of revisionist history that is bad, is the history that seems to be made up just to prove a point. Typically historians are not the one that are dabbling in it. A rather famous Fox News host stated a few years back that American soldiers had massacred Nazi troops at Malmedy. He was wrong of course, it was the other way around. He made the statement to excuse (and that is too light a word really) what had happened at Abu Gharib during the Iraq War. He was completely wrong on his historical reference and to this day has not admitted to it or apologized for painting American troops the way he did to make a point.
This type of revisionist history (and there are many more examples) really has no place in our society or anywhere near our history books. There is a saying, "To the victor go the spoils", it should actually be "To the victor, go the spoils and the history books".
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]
And Now for Something Completely Different
- Blog RSS feed
- Comments RSS feed