Societies with the greatest change in a lifetime

I was writing a short story about the Sioux set in the 1600s and really dove into the details of how they lived their lives.  As I wrote the story I couldn’t help but think that the grandchildren of the characters in my book would have a clash of cultures that would dramatically change to their lives.

That got me to thinking – “What group of people had the biggest change in their living situation in history?”  I quickly created a list and I’m sure I’ve forgotten some but I thought it might be interesting to compare peoples at the two ends of a long lived life.

Roman born in 310 – 390 - The Roman had been the dominant power in the west for four centuries and while they had periods of unrest had always come back stronger.  Life in Rome was great if you were a citizen and peaked in the first century around 1.5 million people.  By the year 300, the population had declined by at least half that but Constantine showed the empire still was formidable.  Two things he did changed everything – First he created an eastern capital and also made Christianity the official religion.  Constantinople meant that the grain that Rome had depended on in the past would be going elsewhere and was one reason for emigration.  Non-christians were persecuted with additional taxes and other methods throughout the empire so that the Roman Gods were set asided.  By the end of the 4th century Rome had decreased in size to around 200,000.  Alaric took the city a few decades later and looted much of what remained.  Two centuries later only around 20,000 people were left to farm around the ruins of the once great capital.

English born in 400 – 480 - The English were is a special situation as they were one of the last to be conquered by the Romans so the influence wasn’t as great.  When the Romans left in 410 they left behind great roads, buildings, aqueducts, and other engineering projects that the people left behind had no idea how to maintain.  There wasn’t a school that taught English or Latin along with any engineering/mathematics study and soon the country was falling into disrepair.  The only learned people were the priests and they Christianized the populace.  All authority was localized and few thought much beyond their next meal.  A feudal society was set up of landowners that had the poor working for them.  Cooperation formed slowly but was sped up by the invasions of the Angles and the Saxons from the continent.  Battles raged over the next two centuries but eventually the country was as much Saxon as Roman British.

Sioux born in 1830 – 1910 - They were essentially a hunter-gatherer society that ranged from Minnesota to the Dakotas.  Horses and guns had been introduced by the whites a few centuries early and created a massive change on their society as possession of either gave the owner a great advantage over other tribes.  The Sioux had seen white traders but the only impact on their lives at the time was the push west from the gun toting Chippewa into their former territory in Wisconsin.  As the whites pushed west, the Sioux also got guns which made them a feared enemy by all who faced them.  The high point was the Battle of Little Big Horn but it was the beginning of the end.  They were surrounded and those that didn’t return to the reservation escaped into Canada.  White settlers took their land as the area set aside for them was decreased and many integrated into American society.  Those that didn’t were left on a reservation system totally dependent on government handouts as the ecosystem that allowed their former way of life was gone.

American born in 1790 – 1870 - The United State was a small country with uncertain borders coming off a war with Great Britain.  The government was new and most were unsure of its success.  The population was 4 million and comprised of a small area on the east coast.  Over the next eighty years the country grew at a rapid pace to become the worlds most productive country with a population of almost 39 million.  It had just undergone a bloody Civil War which proved to all that the Union would last while the borders of the country now stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  The country had gone through the industrial revolution and over the next century dominated the world commercially.

Japanese born in 1850 – 1930 - The Japanese were a feudal society that was big enough to keep foreign powers out until 1853 when Commodore Perry of the United States forced them into a trade treaty. This only opened Japan to trade but the most dramatic change was the adoption of western thinking. Within twenty years the shoganate power was stripped and the Emperor made a figurehead as it’s military leaders used technology and an able Japanese public to transform the country into the modern age. By 1900, the Japanese were able to defeat the Russians and by 1930 they were racing across Asia, bent on dominating the region.

American born in 1900 – 1980 - Americans in 1900 thought they lived in the best time possible. The country was certainly growing and the future was definitely bright. The next eighty years brought not only the outrageous idea of manned flight but eventually to someone landing on the moon. Mathematics was made easier by counting machines then computers. Farming production was increased so that a majority of Americans living on farms left so that only >1% do it today. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Chicago boomed in population. Photography and motion pictures were invented and made so simple that anyone could do it. I think it is safe to say that someone born on a small farm in 1900 and died in an air conditioned house in the suburbs in 1980 would look back on their life in wonder at just how much had changed.

I know my list is centered too much on America and its spiritual ancestors but I don’t know enough about Persian, Indian, and Chinese culture to speak much about it without a lot of research.  As I reviewed the list it dawned on my the huge gap in my lists.  As I tried to think of something in between I considered the Turks as the Islamic Arabs changed their society, Italy in the Renaissance, Spain during the Inquisition, and the British during the Industrial Revolution.  They would have been great additions but they didn’t represent a total shift of an area culturally, militarily, and economically like the ones I listed.

One other thing I noticed is that my two early inclusions are bad while the ones afterward were considered improvements (with the notable exception of the Sioux).

If I was part of one society and had to pick the one I’d like to have been gone through I’d have to say a Roman in 400 AD.  The Sioux went through a horrific time at the hands of the Americans but their former living situation never came close to the luxry that the Romans experienced.  That had to come as quite a shock to the Roman nobility.

The best societal change would have to be the Americans in the 20th century.  With our current struggles let’s hope we don’t see a repeat of what the Romans went through though I’m guessing there are a few Sioux that would smile.

Tweet

The best day of class I ever had

I reached adulthood during the Reagan administration and I distinctly remember being excited when he got re-elected in 1984.  He spoke bluntly, increased military spending, and made everyone feel good about being an American.  Considering that most of my spare time was spent reading history books about military conquerors and great empires, Reagan’s persona was perfect for someone like me.

The turning point was when I got to my senior year and my American Government class.  The person responsible was pretty unlikely to teach anyone anything.  Mr Jamison was always late to class, never had a lesson plan ready and rarely used the book.  By the end of the class I remember we made it through the 2nd chapter of our text which infuriated my classmates who had to endure the whole thing.  If I give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he didn’t believe it was best to learn about the American Government from a text book.  Maybe he was just lazy.  I really don’t know.

A good example of his teaching method was the last 6 weeks.  We were told to write 2 papers about anything in world history that impacted the American Government. My 2 papers were about William the Conqueror and his opponent Harold Godwinson. When I got authorization for these papers I remember arguing that these two represented a turning point as the rise of the Normans led to English Common Law and the Magna Carta which had a profound impact on our government.  My concept was a bit simplistic as I look back and I’d love to write it today as there really is a good paper in there describing what happened under William and what could have happened under Harold. The truth was when I did my research I saw a book on the two men and wanted to read it. I read it in 2 days, returned it to the library and forgot all about the project.  Mr Jamison’s classes after that consisted of nothing but goofing off and most times even he skipped class.  The one thing I do remember is he never said a word about the project until the day it was due and I was totally screwed.  I didn’t have the book and it had been well over a month since I read it. He gave us until the end of class to finish and frantically wrote the two papers from memory. As I recall my grade ended up that six weeks as a D.  At first I wasn’t too upset as I’d already been accepted to college and only needed my diploma. My nonchalant attitude changed a bit when I realized how badly this class killed my class rank as it dropped from 24th at the end of the 1st semester to 47th when I graduated.  That changed my class rank % from top 10% to top 25% which isn’t nearly as prestigious.  Oh well!  This was another lesson of sorts.

I’ve digressed but I told that to give flavor of Mr. Jamison’s teaching method.  His classes were very loose with lots of discussion and not always about politics or government.  In hindsight I don’t know if his classes were by a genius that got kids interested in political happenings by reading the issues of the day or a lazy guy that had tenure and didn’t care to teach that hard.  It’s been too many years for me to fairly access that.  All I know is one day he began class with a simple question.

“Are you are Republican or a Democrat?”

As we were in a suburban classroom, almost everyone raised their hand that they were Republican.  The only person that answered Democrat also happened to be the only African-American in our school at the time.  I remember a few of the popular kids tried to get him to switch his allegiance and his response was simple, “I’m black, we’re all Democrats”.  Everyone laughed but in truth the opposite was also true.  We were all Republicans because we were white suburban kids. 

What Mr. Jamison did next was possibly the best lesson I ever learned.  He told us to pull out a sheet of paper and asked us 20 questions that revolved around the most divisive issues of the day.  When we finished we made a copy and turned in our answers.  He quickly totaled the results and revealed the questions on the chalkboard which he read again.  As we went down each question we were told to grade our own papers as he told us whether the position was Republican or Democrat.  My result was 65% Democrat – 35% Republican.  The totals for the class were about the same and when the teacher asked people who answered more Democratic, almost everyone in the class raised their hands. 

He put the class totals next to each issue and I was amazed just how most people toed the Democratic party line.  Mr. Jamison went over each question and had someone from each side talk about why they felt their answer was right.  The discussions got a little heated at times (especially around abortion) but it was amazing insight into how my fellow students thought.

I’ve always thought I went into that classroom a Republican and exited a Democrat.  The truth is that I’ve always been more Libertarian/Independent but that day taught me to look into the details before aligning myself to anything.  The lesson Mr. Jamison taught me that day was a huge first step in developing my critical thinking and I’ve always been grateful that at least on that one day, he cared enough to teach and I really do believe my life is different as a result.  On that day, his class was certainly better than memorizing lines from a textbook (even if he did give me my first D).

Tweet

End of the American Republic

This article is in desperate need of editing as I know I repeated myself a few times but I wrote it in about 2 hours of uninterrupted thought and want to keep this as a record for myself as the next decade unfolds.  The thing that set me off was the Supreme Court re-affirming the Citizens United case.
****************************

As a kid I felt I was lucky to live in a country like the United States.  It was so obvious we weren't only the wo

rld's most powerful country but also one with a political system that was the fairest in history led by enlightened men that only wanted the best for the world. This was true because as my teachers insisted, the American people demanded this from their country due to American Exceptionalism.

To my 12 year old self, it was so obvious who the bad guys were in the story. All you had to do was watch the television and see images of the dastardly Russians with their godless communism. It was a thinly disguise form of totalitarianism like we'd escaped in 1776 and we were the world's best hope.

As I got older I realized that the world wasn't that simple but I remember writing a paper in high school where I tried to imagine that we were in fact the bad guys. My imagination wasn't good enough for the task. After all, we allowed the vote. We protected people's rights. We made other countries toe the line when they committed human rights violations. This wasn't true in the rest of the world.

Since I've gotten out of college my disillusionment with my country has been mostly about money and the fact that the American electorate is willing to turn a blind eye to elected officials who aren't fiscally responsible and unwilling to protect American jobs and industries. The mantra they always spoke was about free trade. They argued that only free trade would allow us unfettered access to the rest of the world as while they took the manual jobs like making cars and computer chips, we would dominate industries like banking and computer software. Retraining was all that was needed.

This logic always has frustrated me because the American education system isn't up to the task of that 100% of it's graduates would be able to work on Wall Street. Frankly no country can be made up of all white collar jobs. And of course it was inevitable that the United States economy was going to crash at some point. After World War Two were were the only country to come out of the war in a better position than we entered. Our industries had gotten a huge shot of capital which killed any remaining vestiges of the Great Depression while the rest of the world had to totally rebuild. This set us up for two decades where the world literally couldn't match our production.

Everything changed around the time of Watergate and OPEC in 1973. These events were merely coincidental as by that time countries like Japan and Germany had recovered from their war time losses and now were able to compete with the United States on equal footing. For most of the 70s the country seemed to take a downward trend. That is until Ronald Reagan got into office in 1981.

After he was in office a shift happened in America. Instead of protecting our steel industry we shipped them overseas where they could make the steel cheaper. Instead of protecting our industries with tariffs, the sales went overseas as well. Big business is mostly to blame as companies like IBM and GM weren't able to make changes in the modern economy or produce quality chips/automobiles. Unions played a role too as it was difficult to argue to companies that they needed to keep jobs here when they had to pay $20/hour here vs $.20/hour overseas. Even our citizens seemed blind to the danger as millions of them seemed to be happy buying Sony, Toyota or Lexus. As a result, twenty years later we virtually have no heavy industry left in our country.

The economy continued to boom during this era and the heroes weren't the Rockefellers in oil or the Carnegie's in steel but the bankers on Wall Street. Thees people moved money around the world and manipulated the world with their money. Corporations downsized middle management through computerization while most of the jobs turned into some sort of service industry.

My question has always been this - If everyone is providing a service for someone else then who is really doing the real work? The answer is no one as the economy in the United States was based on a lie of paper.

It's been about 5 years since the bank collapse took much of the savings from the middle class of the world. People are rebuilding but it is now a different place. One where the money is sitting in the hands of countries like Saudi Arabia and China who could literally destroy our economy if they wanted by selling the T-Bills that fun our debt. The only reason they don't is because Americans still are buying Arabian oil and Chinese goods. Their economies aren't to the point where they could handle the loss of our consumers. Every year we dig ourselves a little deeper and the world is increasingly able to live without our consumption.

How did we get here? What did we do wrong?

I've hinted on it above but the real problem was that like my teenaged self, the American voters couldn't see what was really being done in their name. Jobs left the country but taxes were low and porkbarrel projects were high. It was morning in America.

I still believe that the Soviet Union was evil. That may have been too strong of a word as I have learned Russians are in reality pretty nice but their government was totalitarian and we are a republic. That made us good and them evil to my 12 year old brain. As I said earlier, I struggled to imagine a world where American could possibly be anything but good. It's like movies like Omen 2 where the devil was attempting to gain the presidency. I always laughed at movies like this or the Manchurian Candidate as the simple fix was our president couldn't legislate and was only in office for 4 years before he had to face the electorate. There was no way that we'd ever have a situation like happened in Rome over 2000 years ago when the Roman Republic was replaced by a Totalitarian Empire. That was impossible ... the American people wouldn't allow it.

What I didn't consider was money. Politicians need money to get reelected and television ads have a big impact on the electorate. Term limits don't help because our two party system means anyone that wants to get involved is funneled through those two organizations and have to toe the line or the next person in line will get the money. Add to that the recent development of the Supreme Court recognizing corporations as having all the rights of an individual and now you have entities whose only loyalty is to their stockholder who are spread out all over the world with the ability to pump millions and billions into elections and create negative television ads against any politician that dares to oppose their views.

Politicians aren't rich. They constantly raise funds for re-election every two/six years. The thing is you are now see prime time attack ads in someones district in the middle of their term from a non-descript organization like "Americans for America". Since we are only likely to hear one side of the argument it eventually becomes our truth. Ultimately we'd rather not get into the details of politics because they are difficult so we distracted like the Romans but instead of gladiators we follow stories about the foibles of Hollywood starlets.

All this isn't enough to end the American Republic but the republic is teetering.

In the next 10 years (and I'm probably being generous), we will see inflation like we haven't seen since 1920 Germany hit the economies of the world making all the paper shuffling of the last 20 years irrelevant. The only thing that will matter is solid goods and the only people able to provide them to the American people will be corporations from their enterprises overseas. As the American dollar becomes worthless and the American consumer is unable to spend on credit any longer, the world will turn to a new currency and we will no longer be able to abuse the system.

This would have happened years ago if oil and goods weren't sold in American dollars. This has been our blessing and our curse. It's simple supply and demand and today the world needs dollars. Despite financial policies that would cause inflation and a decrease in buying power in other countries we escape because if we collapse the world economy the world is forced to turn to the only safe investment - the dollar and the T-bill. This actually causes an increase in demand for these items which increases our buying power and allows us to run up our debt even more. Compare that to Argentina in the 80s that had a disastrous war they couldn't afford and their money lost most of its value. We are actually lucky Greek economic policy made moving to the Euro impossible or we could be facing that crisis right now. (OPEC was already making noise they were headed that direction in 2002 but backed off due to American pressure (having tanks in the area helped) and the Euro crisis).

In some ways delaying the inevitable is making it even worse. Instead of getting periodic adjustments like the rest of the world, every bad decision by the United States government is rewarded. Unfortunately for us, every balloon will eventually pop.

When the collapse happens millions will be out of work as the country struggles to figure out if we can do anything anymore. Mega corporations will have all the money and they will own the politicians. I'm sure that people will attempt to stop it but throughout history when all the money is controlled by a few the result is totalitarianism in some sort be it Soviet Communism, German Fascism, a Military Dictator, a Roman Emperor, or a Hereditary Monarchy.

The power of the United States has always been the and the possibility that hard work combined with the natural resources at hand would create personal wealth. This caused a historical anomaly of a majority of citizens in a middle class between rich and poor. Those days are almost at an end.

As a child this idea seemed so ridiculous. We were the United States and our Republic could only be a force for good. Today, I don't see how we can avoid something much much different.

Tweet

World War Two revisited

I saw an interesting argument on a bulletin board the other day that had two guys making the following comments:

We *&%*&% saved the world in WW2, next time some European country goes bat shit crazy and you've all got your balls on the chopping block we will be the only one to call

 The response to this was a profanity filled no to which the original poster commented:

Name a single country that had the power to take over germany, besides the united states. Great Britian was on the verge of surrendering, the soviet unions 2 greatest cities were under seige, and any other country barely has an army.

The response was this:

Lol in the case of U.S vs The Third Reich the Third Reich would've won. Without a doubt. It's a fact that the German army at that time period could totally butt rape anyone they wanted too. I don't like saying it, but it's true.

Germany had better technology (even though the american technology was easily the most advanced amongst the allies), better trained and motivated soldiers and a better society.
Without America, the allies would've been ^%amp;amp;$. Yes. But it's vice versa too.

The conversation devolved into a  name calling contest but the original exchange is a bit interesting.  Are these guys right?  Did the United States save the world?

To start the conversation I thought I'd come up with a few arbitrary categories for comparison for discussion for the main combatants.

Allies	Prep	Mil	Pop	Resource	Tech	Prod
United States	1	3	7	9	6	9
USSR	3	1	9	9	2	4
Great Britain	6	6	3	3	7	5
France	5	5	3	3	5	4

Axis	Prep	Mil	Pop	Resource	Tech	Prod
Germany	8	9	4	4	9	6
Italy	7	2	3	3	3	3
Japan	8	7	4	1	4	4

France
At the start of the war this is no doubt that Germany had the most preparation and the best trained military in the world.  At the beginning of the war they faced the combined military of France and Great Btitain through superior tactics quickly forced the British from the continent.  That allowed them to take on the French alone and quickly force them from the war.  This step alone gave the Germans a huge advantage as they controlled all the land in Western Europe from the Arctic Circle to Gibraltar.

Great Britain
The British were isolated on their island and there is no way the British with their small population and lack of natural resources could have ever done much damage to Germany's 'Fortress Europe'.  In fact imagine if the war was just Britain vs Germany.  Do you think that the war in northern Africa would have had the same outcome?  While it is true that the British ruled the seas, the Germans ruled the air and as the war in the Pacific showed, airpower wins over naval forces.  All it would have taken was for them to invade a few key locations, especially Gibraltar and Malta, and the Mediterranean would have soon been a German lake.  That would have opened up the Middle East all the way to the Persian Gulf.  One key thing this would have done is make it difficult for British bombers to hit at the German industry or raw materials like the oil fields in Ploiesti, Romania.  If the war was left to the British alone, the whole continent would be speaking German today.

USSR
There is no doubt the dumbest thing Hitler did in the entire war was invade the Soviet Union.  He saw the biggest problem facing Germany was they didn't have room to grow and he saw the great Russian plains as an ideal place for expansion. He is supposed to have said, 'Everything I undertake is directed against the Russians. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with the Russians, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces. I need the Ukraine so that they can't starve us out, as happened in the last war.'  The issue is it would have taken years to offset the resources needed to invade the USSR with any potential gains. If he had waited five or ten years once he stabilized the situation in the rest of Europe it would have been much different. In his defense he assumed that Great Britain was no longer a threat and the United States would stay out of the conflict. When that didn't happen he had spelled his own doom.

In any event,  the Germans launched the largest invasion of the war in June 1941.  Within months the Germans had 150 divisions marching deeper and deeper into Soviet territory.  The German army that marched into the Soviet Union was unmatched by any force in history to that point.  Their reletively few casualties in the war in France, Norway and the Balkans gave them a well trained army led by some of the most able commanders of their time.  To give you an idea of the size of the German army, it totalled about 200 divisions at the time, and the ones not in the USSR were sitting along the Atlantic coast as a safeguard against invasion.  Over the next two years the German army actually grew to almost 300 divisions.  They were able to do this by conscripting the young, the old, and by accepting troops from countries in Southeast Europe.  As the losses on the Eastern front mounted, the quality of the German Army declined as more and more soldiers were fed into the Russian meat grinder.

The Russians were used to this kind of warfare.  Life in the Soviet Union was hard and one of the biggest obstacles was their leader Josef Stalin.  In the early 30s the Russian Army was on par with the rest of the world technologically and with their large population had a formidable force.  Stalin was well aware that Germany and Japan were threats to his country but instead of working to modernize the army like Hitler, he instead chose to decimate it during the purges meant to root out traitors.  In 1937-8, 3 of 5 marshals, 13 of 15 army commanders, eight of nine admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars were removed from their posts and most were killed. It is estimated that 30% of lower level Russian officers were removed from their posts during this time though many were reinstated in the years after the start of the war.  Stalin's reasoning is he wanted a force loyal to him when war came but the immediate effect was to drastically reduce the readiness of his army.  When the war started, this inexperience would prove deadly.

At the beginning of the war in the East the manpower was tilted slightly in Germany's favor as the Soviet Union had their forces spread throughout the country and a large force was stationed in the East as a safeguard against Japan in Manchuria.  As the German forced ripped though the Russian forces the size the armies shifted.  At the start of the war, Germany had a population of around 70 million while the Soviet Union was over 170 million.  For comparison sake, France, Great Britain, and the United States had populations of 42, 48, and 131 million respectively.  The problem for Germany was as they advanced further and further into Russia, they got further from their base of supply and every soldier killed meant the the combat readiness of their forces declined while the inexperienced Soviets got better in every battle.  The peak hit in the winter of 1942 during the battle of Stalingrad and once the Russians stopped the Germans the initiative switched sides and the Germans moved to the defensive.

This doesn't answer the question posed by the  poster - Could the Russians have beaten Germany by themselves?  That's a tough question to answer as there are a few variables at work.  First, if the Germans didn't need to worry about Great Britain or the 50 divisions sitting on the Western Front the Germans would have easily taken Moscow in the first year.  They almost did it with the 150 so it would have been easy with 200.  Would that have meant anything?  It didn't to Napoleon as he took the city only to realize the futility when the Russian Army continued to retreat further east.  Warfare had changed since that time but the Soviet Union used their huge advantage in labor to start new industries east of the Ural mountains.  The only question is whether they could have survived without the United States sending billions of dollars of transportation equipment and food to the Soviet Union through Iran and Vladivostok.

Ultimately my answer to this question is yes and no.  While there  is no way the Soviet Union could have stopped them east of the Urals, I don't see how the Germans could have advanced much further than they did.  The amount of land they were trying to hold was immense and partisans were already becoming an issue.  To give you an idea of what the Germans faced they had taken an area twice the size of Germany and held barely 15% of the Soviet landmass.  It was impossible to split their forces to control every part of the country nor was that ever their intention.  Once they took Moscow they would have consolidated their lines and pushed to the Caucasus.  If the Russians couldn't be convinced to surrender, the next few years for the Germans would have consisted of trying to hold off the invading Soviet armies while domesticating the conquered lands.  As the American Army in Iraq can attest, conquering a country is much easier than governing it.  The line most likely would have started in the Caspian and followed the Volga to where it ends just northwest of Moscow then North  following the rivers and canal systems north to the White Sea.  This line would have been especially hard for the Soviets to penetrate especially in the south where the Volga was over a mile wide.  That would be the best case scenario.  I doubt the Soviets could have decimated the Germans like they did in the war without support and the best they could have hoped for is a German retreat back to the original line of battle.

United States
This question is a tough one because it really depends on American public will.  For the Americans to enter the war alone you have to assume the Germans took Great Britain and now control all of Western Europe while the Soviet Union is biding its time under a non-aggression pact.  Would the United States invade to liberate Europe?  I'm sure Roosevelt would have liked to do just that but most Americans were against going to war right up to Pearl Harbor.  Hitler made it easy for Roosevelt as he declared war on the United States the next day who then responded in kind.  Roosevelt then joined with Churchill and Stalin in making Germany the prime target, saving Japan for last.  Imagine if none of that happened.  Would we have gone to war with Germany by ourselves?  I highly doubt it.

But let's assume we did.  Where would we base our operations?  The only choice would be West Africa as everything north of that is easily defended.  The first step would have been to take the Azores, Madeira, or the Canary Islands then to Casablanca, through Western Africa to form a base in Tunis.  That would need to be followed by an invasion of one of the Mediterranean Islands like Malta, Corsica or Sicily and that would be used similar to how we used England in World War II for an eventually invasion of southern France, Italy or Greece.  My guess is France would have been the target with the hope that eventually we'd end up in Berlin to make the Germans sue for peace.

Did the United States have the power to do that?  Almost definitely.  Would they have done it without Pearl Harbor?  It is doubtful.  Public opinion would have crucified Roosevelt when casualties of 1 million+ occurred during an invasion of Southern France.  Keep in mind that Britain and the United States only faced about 60 weakened German divisions in Western Europe on D-Day.  Imagine instead if they faced an additional 200 elite divisions from the Eastern front.  The war material the United States could produce was immense but without the the bases in Britain, German production capability would have increased and that might have been enough to push the Americans off the continent.  American public opinion would have done the rest.

What about the reverse?  Is the posters assertion that in a battle of Germany vs the United States that the Third Reich would have won?  Frankly this is a ludicrous assertion for the same logistical reasons that would have made it difficult for the United States to invade Germany.  In a battle of the US vs Germany, the only possible outcome would have been a draw.  One side didn't have the will and the other didn't have the capability.

Conclusion
It is fun to sometimes think about the what if's of history.  What gets lost in the original posters argument is for anything similar to the historical outcome to occur, all 3 powers were needed.  If it were Germany vs Britain, Britain would have lost.  Soviet Union vs. Germany would have most likely ended up in a stalemate with the Soviets conceding lands.  The United States vs Germany most likely would have never occurred due to American public opinion.  The only thing that allowed the war to work as it did was that the British held on which eventually gave the Americans a base of operations in Europe.  That forced the Germans to hold troops on the Western front which combined with American food and logistical support gave the Soviets enough breathing room to allow them to use their manpower to turn the tide of the war.  D-Day was important as it hastened the end and prevented the Soviets from ruling post war Europe but by that time the Germans were beaten through the prior efforts of all three powers.

Atomic thought
One interesting thought is how the atomic bomb have been affected under the above scenarios.  The only reason Roosevelt was able to start the Manhattan project is we were in a time of war.  If the United States isn't at war then we most don't develop the bomb.  That would have allowed German scientists the freedom to develop it instead.  The idea of Hitler with the bomb is scary indeed and  we are lucky the man lacked patience.  His premature attack on the Soviet Union changed world history as there is no doubt the world we live in today would be very very different if that didn't happen.

Tweet

Letters from Iwo Jima

I saw the movie Letters from Iwo Jima and felt compelled to write a review;

This movie toyed with my emotions continually.  Clint Eastwood did a great job of finding a few Japanese characters for the audience to identify with then put them into danger against unknown enemy.  As with any movie, you grow attached to the main characters but then as they enter battle we are reminded that they are fighting American soldiers and it was difficult for me to know what I wanted to happen.  In the end I was hoping that everyone would lay down their arms and stop killing one another but I knew the story ended different.  Every time a Japanese officer charged his men into a forlorn hope or a soldier fell on a grenade it reminded me of the futility of blind jingoism.  The only issue I had with the movie is it appeared to be on a tight budget and the battle scenes weren't nearly as well done as I've seen in similar movies.  In the end though this movie was carried by the conflicting the issues of duty to country and love of family.  The result is possibly the greatest movie about the need for peace I have ever seen.

For those that are upset that the writers didn't portray the Japanese leadership in a worse light I can understand your point.  The bottom line is the Pacific war was started by the Japanese and and their ill treatment of American soldiers quickly caused a similar response by our troops.  After hostilities started the brutality in the Pacific War was fierce and neither viewed the other in humane terms.  For those that feel this movie is a disservice to the American soldier I suggest you read the book, "With the Old Breed" by EB Sledge.  He fought with the 5th Marines on Pelieu and Okinawa and he mixes personal details with a detachment when speaking about the big picture that I found amazing.  The movie I saw fit very well with what he described and makes me feel that at least one vet would have agreed with portrayal.  In the end I thank god that my country had the will/means to put an end to tyrannical leaders on both sides of the world while I respect the service of all the combatants that got caught up in the whirlwind.  I hope it is the last time we will ever need to take that kind of action and am glad Mr. Eastwood's movie encourages that view.

Tweet

Greece .. the creator and destroyer of all things???

I had an ironic thought this morning.  Can the country that started it all also be the one to end it all?

Many people credit Greece with being the the cradle of modern civilization.  Among the greats are Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Plato, Xenophon, Euclid, and Dionysis.  These men lead the world from a time of brute force into an age of thinking.  The initial advances in astronomy, history, medicine, math, philosophy, and government all occured during the time of these men.  Who knows what the world would look like today without their contributions? 

Now a collapse in the Greek economy is causing a worldwide panic ... more after the break.

Tweet

A look back on my thoughts about the 2004 elections

I was visiting a site that I used to post on all the time and found a message I put up right before the 2004 elections.  The site was really interesting as it was made up of about 50% Europeans and 50% Americans so it was my first real experience with different cultures.  The sad thing was that my fellow American players all seemed to be cut from the Republican cloth and some of the conversations got really heated between the two groups.  I really hated to be lumped with the radical right so I made this post and I find it interesting to read from the vantage point of the future.
                                                                       

10/08/04 - I say as an American (and one that more taxes than 90% of my fellow Americans) that it bothers me that naive and close minded attitudes that are on the rise in the United States today.

If someone says something against the present administration the response is "America - love it or leave it". If you say something against our president then you are told that you are not supporting our troops and helping the terrorists. I say that's bull. Freedom gives us the right to do these things and without freedom then all efforts of our forefathers are for naught.

I hear people say things like "Freedom isn't free" but then they don't want to pay the taxes to help pay for that freedom. Does our government waste money -- definitely! But sadly no US politician is going to reduce the size of government because our government is based on porkbarrel projects and reduced government means less votes. Our government will only reduce in size when the world decides no longer to pay for our deficit and we will have to look into downsizing our government because we have no other choice. It saddens me that our recent financial irresponsibility will speed up that process and I will have to watch as my country slowly slips in relevance in world affairs. For you America haters out there that is not necessarily a good thing. Imagine what the world would look like if the United States would have stayed isolationist after the 1930's.

Many say "the terrorists hate us for our freedoms." I can't believe anyone would fall for such simplistic propoganda. To those people I say ... read a book and come up with your own opinions as to why they hate us. Maybe they hate us because we are exporting American culture to all parts of the world and some of them like things the way they are. Maybe they hate us because they are poor and out of work and need some one to blame. Or maybe they hate us because we Americans needlessly taunt the world with an attitude that we are better than everyone else. Finally maybe they hate us because we do whatever we want while telling others soveriegn countries what they are allowed to do. I personally believe it is a combination of all the above. But being hated is part of being a leader whether you are a parent, a manager of a small company or country. Responsibly reacting to this hatred is one determinant of whether you are going to successful in the long run. Attacking a country with military force when increased political force could have done the job is not the action of a responsible country. The waste in American lives, American money, and world public opinion is just downright maddening. To use an analogy ... remember the Oklamoma City bombing that killed over 300 people using a car bomb. It was proven that the perpetrator of this act was an American in the Michigan Militia. Did we attack the rest of the Michigan Militia or did we prosecute the persons responsible? The answer is went after the persons responsible. Did we attack all organizations in the United States who were similar is the Michigan Militia because they were terrorists? Again the answer is no. I know the situations are a bit different but using violence to stop violence will usually only create more enemies.

George W Bush has proven time and again that he makes short sighted and selfish decisions. He is not the man to lead our country out of the mess he created. I don't know if John Kerry can get us out of this quagmire but he has proven to me that he is a much better choice. The next four years are going to be tough for the United States no matter who is in office. Tough choices are needed and Mr. Bush has proven he is not up to the task. I am voting for John Kerry for these reasons and hope my fellow Americans also do so. God helps us if Bush is re-elected.

                              

The funny thing is that everyone on that server ... it was from an online roleplaying game ... were as close as you could be as online friends but it was bad whenever we started talking politics.  The responses to my post were mixed.  The Americans either ignored me with a "too long didn't read" response or nitpicked my points.  The Europeans were either closeminded to the fact that Americans weren't all alike but some were really nice.  My favorite response was from a guy that said, "Good to see not all Americans are brainwashed, thanks."  

My best "friend" online was possibly the most misguided and said, 

" i read your entire post, and i have to say that we mostly disagree. PRESIDENT Bush has done a great job so far, tax cuts (we need more), education (Kennedy's no less!), health care (that thing liberals have been promising for years, that we DON'T need), national security (kills terrorists dead). i know that everything i've mentioned to you seems weird because you think he's failed on all those. well that is because we see the same evidence and come to two different conclusions america is great for that

While I don't agree with his points I agree with his final statement.  We all have a right to our opinion and in the United States we have the right to change things with our votes.  Unfortunately Americans have chosen to let their politicians run the country into the ground and we will pay the price in the coming years.

For what it is worth I think Bush did a horrible job during his re-election but after watching Kerry in the Senate during that time I can't believe he would have been much better.  This was a man that was put up as a leader and you'd think with a majority in the Senate that he could have been a leader in Congress similar to  Lyndon Johnson.  Instead he disappeared into the woodwork.  As ineffective as I fear he would have been, I doubt that the Democrats would have the majority in Congress today and it is quite probable that Barack Obama wouldn't be President.

Sometimes ... the long view of history makes things that seem so certain in the present, less so in the future.  Which would have been better?  Who knows?  Bush did most of the damage in his presidency in his first term and by getting re-elected the Republicans rightly took most of the blame.  If Kerry would have won, I'm quite certain that the Republicans would be in a much stronger position that they are today.

Tweet

A Christmas Fight Revisited Revisited

Since I was copying posts from the Daily Kos I thought I copy this one as well from 12/16/06. This is one of my favorites and while things have stabilized in Iraq since I wrote this posting I would be surprised if things don't unravel within 10 years of our departure. Two things are sure ... the United States will never see any free oil to pay for the war and the additional debt burden from the war is more than our country could afford. The saddest thing for me is that since this post in 2006 I have moved a lot so in many ways this was my last normal Christmas. I hope in the next 4 years that changes.

-------------------------------

For as long as I remember my family gathered at my dad's house on the Sunday before Christmas. I'm sure the annual Christmas parties at my dad's house was no different than thousands of other families -- lots of food, football on TV, and conversations with people you haven't seen since the summer. The Christmas of 2002 was a bit different for two reasons. The first reason was that my dad had recently decided to move to Arizona and this was going to be his last Christmas party. The second was that George Bush and the Republicans had campaigned about the need to invade Iraq so the conversations that typically included grandchildren's accomplishments quickly devolved into an argument about Iraq....

I was raised in a typical Midwestern town and I think my family is typical of most although my parents were divorced when I was 8 (sadly that might be typical as well). My Dad is retired from the Navy and a registered Republican but he is probably a more of a moderate than anything else. His family members are from all over the Midwest and we always got a good cross section from the heartland ranging from typical city dwellers to hard working farmers to the slacker that the older generation wonders out loud if they will ever get a J-O-B.

I think my brother and I are pretty typical in that we are very close but also very competitive. He has been a Republican ever since the mid 80's when Reagan was in office. He has a job where he travels in a car a lot and so he gets to listen to Rush Limbaugh quite often. While I loath Rush I have to admit he is good at putting things into simple sound bites messages so that the people who listen to him at least sound intelligent. When I was growing up most people assumed that I was a Republican as well because I had a good job and frankly I just look the part. I have been asked many times why I am a Democrat and I always answer that when I went to college I actually learned to think for myself unlike most Republicans I know (usually this is said with a nod and a wink to my brother who responds with some similar sarcastic remark).

At the 2002 Christmas party my brother started the whole thing by asking me what I thought about the recent elections. I'm sure everyone here remembers the midterms of 2002 as they were brutal. The Republicans expanded their hold on Congress with what I called their "Chicken Little" campaign of fear regarding terrorism and Iraq. Almost immediately after my brother makes his comment about the election the convesation leads to a discussion about Saddam. Soon the entire family room is filled and I realize we now have at least 20 people in the room all discussing Iraq. To my surprise the question quickly went from whether we should invade Iraq to how quickly we should invade Iraq. Soon after it devolved to a situation of me versus the room. My dad's cousins from the city, my stepmom's relatives from country, and my aunt's work friends all aligned themselves against me. I thought I could have counted on my my slacker cousin without the J-O-B but was sadly disappointed. I was completely shocked because even though I knew my views were different than most people it really hit home that day. Their discussion came down to a few points.

• Saddam is evil and needs to be taken out.
• Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
• Oil will pay for the reconstruction.
• The people of Iraq need to be free.

I couldn't believe the simplistic nature of their arguments and I couldn't get anyone to listen. I argued that wars never create a more stable country and that we were too far in debt to be able to afford to adequately rebuild Iraq. I argued that it would be at least 5 years to get the oil flowing to pay for the war. I argued that it is one thing to beat the Iraqi army but it is quite another to run their country. I informed them that Iraq has no history and is made up of multiple religious and ethnic cultures that are bound to fight one another once Saddam was gone. I hit them with every fact I could think of but they came back to the same simple points which mainly consisted of 9/11=Terrorist=Evil=Saddam (which I have come to call the Republican's 9/11 transitive property as it works with most every issue). This conversation went on for at least an hour with me getting madder and everyone poking fun at my naivity about how the world really worked. The conversation ended when my dad (who hadn't said a word) finally had enough and said simply .... "End of discussion, it's Christmas, let's get off this subject, get some food, and sit down to watch some football". He knew my arguments weren't convincing anyone and the discussion was getting so heated it was on the verge of ruining Christmas. Dads can be wise like that.

The conversation was over but the conversation in my mind continued. I asked myself, "How could I be so out of touch with my family and my country"? I'm pretty stubborn and was mad at myself for not being able to articulate the right argument to convince anyone. Of course in hindsight I realize that to convince someone they have to be willing to listen.

Over the next few years my brother has enjoyed tweaking me whenever something positive happened like when Bagdad fell or Saddam was captured or when the Iraqi elections occurred. I rarely brought it up because it sucks to have a position where to win an argument something bad has to happen like more American soldiers dying or more money wasted. I have never stopped believing that the war was wrong and we could have gotten much better results some other way.

In the past year it is now obvious that everything I said is coming true. Since my dad moved to Arizona we've moved Christmas from relative to relative and this Sunday is the first Christmas at my house. I'm sure everyone who was there 4 years ago has probably forgotten the discussion and may even believe today that they were one of the few that stood against the war. I'd love to tweak my brother one more time with a sarcastic question about the 2006 election but I'm not sure I can do it. The Democrats did all I could have hoped for but I have felt an emptiness ever since their victory. At first I thought it was the fact that I was so focused on seeing that the Republican get kicked out of office that the actual fact of them leaving took away one of my life motivators. I've come to realize that it is something else and something sadder. It's because people like me weren't able to convince enough people that the Republicans were wrong back in 2002 that we find ourselves in our current situation. While I know it is silly to think that way I can't help but mourn the lost men, money, and our country's reputation that the Republicans needlessly squandered. I'm happy the Democrats won the election but they can never bring back the past. So this Sunday I will follow my dad's advice once again only this time I'll end the discussion before it begins and simply say,

"Merry Christmas everyone.... help yourself to some food, there's football game on the TV".

But I want to say so much more......

Tweet

The Coming Health Care Crisis - 4 years later

Copy of a post I made to the Daily Kos on 1/23/06 -- interesting read 4 years later
-------------------
I feel the same as most of you about national health care but feel that way for what I'm sure is a different reason. I head a regional finance department of a billion dollar company and review the cost of our medical expenses every month. I have been in my job for over 10 years and have seen the cost of medical care grow from about $1,500 per employee to almost $10,000 in that time.

The issue described in detail below....

Part of the issue is our aging work force. Part of it is due to bad luck on the part of some of our employees. But most of it is because the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs are growing at a rate 8-10x greater than inflation. In the last few years this cost has eaten up our profits to the point where we had no choice but to cut costs in this area. Co-pays on doctors visits and drug benefits weren't enough so we are now increasing the annual deductibles. Last year we eliminated our retirees health plan and long ago froze our pension plan. This is the equivalent of a higher, regressive "tax" on our employees but my company really has limited choices. I tell my Republican co-workers, many of whom are the lower paid people I just mentioned, that a national health care plan would resolve many of the issues. They just look at me like I'm Michael Moore in wingtips. They repeat Republican talking points like "it's not the job of government to run health care". I respond by asking where it is written that it is business's job either. If anyone with half a brain would look, business is stepping away from that responsibility because they can no longer afford it. The doctors and drug company's know that they can continue to charge ever increasing rates and businesses will pay the bill. But business will only do this to a point and then either cut benefits or pass the cost on to consumers in the form of an inflation "tax". Most companies are doing both. Our leaders in Washington have been bought and sold on this issue by the lobbyists even though most have to know this is a real problem. Government might not be the ideal solution however it will be a much better option that what is going to happen with business health care plans in the next 10 years. I just hope when the politicians aren't too late when they finally decide to act.

Note: I originally wrote this in reply to margot's post about public pension plans. I decided to post it in a Diary since it kind of left that topic.

Tweet

The Simple Employment Math of Health Care

I post from time to time over on the "daily Kos" and thought I'd copy my latest entry here.

--------------

A good friend of mine continually tells me that it "isn't productive to worry about things over which I have no control". Of course he is right but unfortunately I am not wired that way. I obsess about many things and the mere mention of health care will put me on my soapbox for a few hours. My family has gotten to the point of avoiding the subject for fear of me going off on it as my views on the subject are well known to them.

I see health care from a different angle than most as I have worked in the finance department for a Fortune 500 company for much of my business career and watched as these costs have steadily risen to alarming levels. In the last few years I started advising managers about what I called the health care overtime break-even whenever we were looking to hire new employees.

If the term "Health Care Overtime Break-even" doesn't make sense to you I'll explain it in more detail after the break.

I firmly believe that the long term future of every country's economy is directly tied to the employment levels of people that make, ship, and sell goods and services. These employees are the lifeblood of the economy and this is exactly the hardest hit segment in the United States over the last 30 years. Health care costs have made this situation even worse by depressing the number of people that companies can afford to hire. I like to think of this in a simple formula of:

x = y / (0.5z)

At first glance, perhaps this formula isn't that simple. Let me explain...

x = Overtime Hours Break-even
y = Benefit Cost
z = Hourly Wage Rate

When a company hires an employee, there are two components to the cost. The first is the actual salary paid to the employee and the second part is the benefits. Salary is easy to understand as in most cases it is an hourly wage rate. Benefits are more difficult for people that don't look at them closely as it includes every other piece of compensation paid to employees (Health Care, Long/Short Term Disability, 401k, Employer FICA match among others). Truthfully, most employees don't care about the cost of benefits as they look at them one of two ways -- they have them or they don't. For this example we are going to lump all benefits together as one fixed cost. I do realize that the FICA match isn't fixed but I want to keep this simple and the answer is directionally correct using this assumption.

If you notice, what I described in the previous paragraph is the basis for the formula. "Y" is fixed cost per employee for benefits and "Z" is the Hourly Wage rate. Let's do an example:

Using a Benefit Cost of $10,000 per year and an Hourly Wage Rate of $15 per hour, I get an answer of 1,333 hours annual (or 25.6 per week). What does this number mean? This is the number of hours over 40 that a company should work an hourly employee so that they maximize profits to the company. In this example, the cost of the overtime premium is greater than the cost of benefits when an employee works more than 65.6 hours in a week.

To hopefully make it even a bit more clear I have done the math below for a company that has 60 hours worth of work:

Weekly Cost of Benefits per employee = 200 (10,400 annual)
Wage per hour = $15

Cost of 1 Employee = 60 hours x $15 + 20 OT hours x $7.5 + 200 or $1,250

Cost of 2 Employees= 30 hours x 2 Employees x $15 + 200 x 2 or $1,300

Notice that the cost of 1 employee working 20 hours of overtime is actually cheaper that working 2 employees 30 hours. The formula I listed above is the break-even that shows at what point additional overtime hours are actually costing them money.

What does this mean to the average worker? Let's look at the formula again.

Overtime Hours = Benefit Cost / (0.5 x Hourly Wage Rate)

In the last few decades benefit costs have increased 8-10% per year while hourly wage rates have increased around 2-4%. The impact is that the overtime breakeven has steadily increased over that time.

This has put downward pressure on hiring which didn't matter much when we were at full employment but is a barrier today. I know when I entered the workforce in the late 80's my company's average hourly wage was about $10 and benefits were around $2,000 per employee or an overtime break-even of 7.7. Today's numbers are about $16 and $10,000 or an overtime break-even of 24.0. At one point it made sense to hire more people when we had more work but now it makes more sense to work our existing workforce harder and sadly this will only get worse in the future.

I realize that this is only one small piece of a large issue. Anyone in business that is being honest will agree that the current health care system is a huge disadvantage for American companies. I believe that many CEOs would be delighted if they could remove anything related to health care from their planning discussions. The current health care reform is a good first step to getting this done and I really hope the Democrats have the leadership to make this happen. Because if health care reform doesn't occur, the long term implications are disastrous not only to people who aren't covered today but to every American business.

Tweet

The Rush to War

I am currently reading the Pulitzer Prize winning book by McCullough on John Adams. I have to say I am amazed I didn't know more about this man before reading this book. When we look at the founding fathers, we always think of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Henry, Hancock, Hamilton, and eventually John Adams. One of the funniest quotes from the book is from King George III who said I know of Samuel Adams, is there another?" I am not exactly sure why Adams has been overlooked but it is probably because he wasn't a politician but more of a well read lawyer that had a obstinate streak of what he felt was right and wrong. That obsistancy would not serve him well in the pages of history but he probably wouldn't care because he always did what he felt was right. He was the right man in 1775 at the 1st Constitutional Congress when after meeting George Washington, was the person who nominated him to lead the American Army. He was in the right place in 1776 when he almost singlehandedly persuaded the 2nd Constitutional Congress to declare independance. He was then sent overseas and was ambassador to Holland and first fought a courageous battle just to get recognized by that nation and then negotiated seemingly neverending loans that kept America solvent during the "Confederation" years. He wrote the Massachusetts Constitution which is the oldest living document of its kind in the world and while it copied some ideas from others, it was wholly original and was one of the models for the eventual United States Constitution. He was the first ambassador to England and the first American to be officially recognized by the king after independence. He was absent during the Constitutional debates but wrote a small book on the matter that had a great affect of the precedings. Thomas Jefferson, who was the ambassador to France and at that time Adams good friend, said that it was an excellent book and he agreed with it. Interestingly enough on the other side of the ocean, Jefferson's ally James Madison was allying with Alexander Hamilton to push for passage of the new Constitution. With the passage of the Constitution, Adams asked to be excused from his Holland and England ambassadorships and returned home. George Washington was elected president and John Adams was elected vice president. After 8 years of faithful service to Washington, Adams was elected to the presidency.

---------

It's funny to read this post as I originally wrote the above in 2005 but never finished it. I know my intention was to finish my discussion of John Adams career with a focus on how he kept us out of war with France when the public and his party were pushing him to declare war. John Adams was no great lover of the French but he was a great lover of his country. He knew that a war at that time would have been disasterous for a nation that was just then beginning to pay its debts from the costly revolution from the proceeds of Alexander Hamilton's reforms during George Washington's presidency. One of the great things that occurred during this time was an increasing faith in the United States as a country that would live up to its obligations. John Adams knew that another war would most likely make it impossible for the country to continue on this path. Who knows what would have happened if he didn't stand up for his beliefs? It is possible that the United States would have followed the economic path of their counterparts in Latin America. It's hard to know but I am thankful John Adams made the choice that he did. In many ways, John Adams doesn't deserve the reputation as a royalist as he was a hard working self made man while his principal foe (and sometimes friend) Thomas Jefferson was hailed as a democratic man of the people but was in fact a rich landowner (rich in land -- bad with money). The truth is that John Adams was a straight talker similar to Harry Truman which is ideal trait for a leader but bad for a politician. Unfortuately the president has to be both. Jefferson is in many way the first "politician" in the United States (followed closely by Hamilton and Burr whose duel ended any real opposition to Jefferson) and Adams had the misfortune to stand in his way.

As perhaps is obvious, I was going to contrast Adams with George Bush and specifically his decision to put us into an unnecessary war with Iraq. While certainly it is nice we did it and 5 years later it appears to be on the road to stability (I'll believe it if that is still true in another 10 years). The bottom line is the United States has many issues that need to be addressed at home and GB42's foray has threatened the long term stability of our country for little gain. I would close with the thought that if John Adams were alive today, based on his France decision I doubt he would have thought invading Iraq was a good idea. I was probably also going to compare GB42's folksy image as compared to the reality of his pampered upbringing and contrast that with Thomas Jefferson but in hindsight ... putting GB42 in a sentence with Thomas Jefferson is insulting to TJ and by no means was Mr Jefferson even close to perfection.

----------------

Of course it is 5 years hence and I don't really know what I would have said. Everything I typed above is from memory and as you can probably tell, the John Adams story has really stuck with me and the country was lucky to have his service during their time of need. It is probably a story I should re-read.

Tweet

First Post and a mission

I am not sure if I will be posting here often but I created this site because sometimes I like to write things out to better understand them. I am writing this as a personal diary because to me that is exactly what it is. If others want to comment on my thoughts they can do so but frankly I'm not promising any responses.

As my description says ... I am an avid reader and many times I find myself wondering aloud of how I would react to the situations that these historical figures were placed. I also wonder how they would react if they were placed in our times. My guess is that in most cases they would be shocked at the way the world has changed and not always in a good way. I would imagine Julius Caesar would hate being forced to hold press conferences to explain his military campaigns and the thought of someone like Mozart watching MTV for the first time makes me laugh. I would think that Abraham Lincoln would probably be saddened by the way the emancipation turned out and I'm pretty sure that John Adams / Thomas Jefferson would have some choice words for us about the way we sometimes treat the liberty they worked so hard to give to us. That is basically my goal -- to consider the books that I am reading in a greater context than just reading the words. I want to gain a deeper understanding of them so I may be able to use them later in life as situations arise.

My current reading list seems to be stuck on the American Revolution and have just finished a book called "Washington's Crossing". A few months back I read another book of that period called "1776" and am currently listening to the Pulitzer prize winning book about "John Adams". As I just bought the Federalist Papers I am sure I will have many topics to choose from. The comparison of writing the Iraq constitution our struggles 216 years ago should be interesting to consider. Of course I may just forget the whole thing.....

Tweet