Michelle Obama has hated America for over 40 years?

... like vote for her husband.

Hello dlowan,
Policy should make some sense but then you read something like what was posted right before this comment and you lament for the human race. I suppose nappy thinks that his/her moniker is clever, but is just further evidence of narrow and antagonistic measures taken by a few in an effort to insult others and then try to claim some moral highground with an asinine definition of "left" and "right".
I will grant the last poster this much, I envy his/her ability to lump so many complex issues into a simplistic mantra. The poster probably never has had to think even hard enough to get a headache. That must be a special sort of bliss.

A mob of people come together to make a decision, and you expect rationality?

Well, we DO see sensible, rational political debate, even here!!!! Of course, emotion and all sorts of factors that are NOT rational frequently influence political discussion, but nonetheless I do not think it impossible to expect rationality in political debate. It is simply observable truth that you will not always either see it, or embrace it oneself. Such is life.


You have now brought policy in. Policy is interesting, being, as it is, a result of necessarily flawed human knowledge and predictive abilities, ideology, plus the effects of countless other factors, like the existence of power blocs that need to be taken into account etc. Nonetheless, it is usually more rational, in basically working democracies, than the Nappies would have it be!


When political debate is senseless, I think it reasonable to censure the offenders.










I frequently expect a certain amount of it, yes.

I suppose we could say that McCain's wife thinks that people would be making the right decision if they voted for John...........People in the midst of a political campaign tend to want their candidate to win. Apparently some folks miss that point when we mention Michelle Obama, why would anyone think she would have different expectations than Mrs. McCain?

Um, because Ms. Obama said it was the first time in her adult lifetime that she'd been really proud of her country. Are you saying you think Ms. McCain would say something so completely idiotic?

I agree ... some folks have missed the point.

What I think is that some folks dislike McCain so much that they would be delighted to twist something his wife said to indicate she hated this country. I believe that is what happened to Michelle Obama......I can read the quote as well as you can, I just am not going for the jugular because she misspoke. Do you honestly think she revealed a up-to-now hidden dislike of America????? But since this is a free country, you are also free to interpret her thoughts anyway you want to and if you think you stumbled on to a well-hidden disregard for this country, congratulations, the Bush administration has a job for you.

I don't know about that, but to hear her tell it, she's never really been proud of her country.



Well, I'll tell you what ... you try and interpret her thoughts, and I'll just listen for what she actually says out loud. :wink:

Set, http://www.imageshack.us/ will host an image, and also resize it for you at the same time. FYI, only.

Tico, in all sincerity, you are taking her remark and making it into your interpretation......I have listened to her remark and come to a different field from yours.

I'm not "torqued off," although i am disgusted that he made such a big deal of himself while men like Reynolds, Meredith and Barlow were largely ignored then and after the war (Reynolds got press in Pennsylvania, as "the hometown boy," but not the recognition which Chamberlain managed to promote for himself, and Reynolds was soon largely forgotten outside Pennsylvania).

I've been to Gettysburg more than once, so that won't wash. I'm happy, however, to respond to your points.

Even if Chamberlain had occupied "the ridge crest" from Round Top to Little Round Top (i find that a dubious claim, even if the Park Service--not a sterling source for information--says so), it does not alter the point i have already made, to which i will shortly refer in detail. It is worth noting, also, that if the Park Service is peddling some crap that he occupied the space from the crest of Round Top to the crest of Little Round Top, their claim stretches credulity. Were that the case, with the regiment bled down as it was by that time, he'd have had just about enough men to form a single line with each man covering five feet or more of front. I am not going to bother to link them, but just in a few minutes i read several accounts of the battle online which refer again and again to the fact that Round Top was unoccupied. B Company of the 20th Maine was "advanced," and may have served as a flank guard--however, it was advanced to the southeast, and not to Round Top.

I've already pointed out that the axis of the attack was not from the south, which makes claims about the 20th Maine occupying an "advanced" position dubious. When Longstreet arrived, and the advance of his Corps (McLaws and Hood; Pickett did not arrive until early on the morning of July 2nd) late on July 1st, his men were bivouacked south of the Cashtown Pike, where Heth and Pender had fought Buford's cavalry division, and then Meredith's "Iron Brigade." Lee gave Longstreet his orders, Longstreet objected, Lee insisted, and Longstreet resentfully acquiesced. In typical fashion, Lee had failed to do basic staff work, and Longstreet was obliged to send out officers of his own staff the next morning to find a route for the approach march of McLaws' and Hood's divisions. (Which explains why they did not attack until late in the day.) That approach march lead them to the south end of Seminary Ridge, and the original axis of the attack of McLaws' division, with Hood in echelon behind him, was actually slightly south of east. Dan Sickles had advanced III Corps well beyond the line of Cemetery Ridge, at one point, as much as a mile. The salient this created meant that McLaws' assault actually had three or four axes of attack, and, by the time III Corps was smashed and reeling, McLaws boys were attacking due east.

V Corps was rushed in to protect the southern end of Cemetery Ridge, and therefore, Little Round Top, because III Corps could not do so, which had been Sickles' original mission. At the time that Vincent posted his brigade, the apparent axis of attack was from a little south of west to a little north of east as McLaws' division swept across the Emmitsburg Pike pursuing the badly-beaten-up III Corps. When Hood's boys went into line on McLaws' right, this put them in a position to flank the Federal line, for as far as they could see it at the time. Hood decided to avoid the obstacle of Round Top, because it was clearly unoccupied and unfit for placing artillery, and his brigades were obliged to go in in echelon. As they moved forward they filed off to the right, with Evander Law's brigade forming the extreme right of Hood's line, and the axis of the assault effectively became from south of west to north of east.

When Vincent placed his brigade, the threat was from McLaws' division almost due west of his position. That the 20th Maine was on his extreme left is not sufficient cause to claim that they occupied an "advanced" position. Dan Sickles stupidly pushing III Corps out to as much as a mile in advance of the position he had been ordered to occupy counts as occupying an advanced position, and the price his Corps paid for his stupidity is patently obvious.

I rather suspect that the Park Service has fallen prey to the pro-Chamberlain propaganda mill just as have so many writers. The controversy of where specific units were and where they fought at Gettysburg was a cottage industry from immediately after the battle until well into the 20th century. Federal and Confederate units (their veteran's associations) and those who had commanded them, if they had survived the war, raged and feuded over where their commemorative markers should be placed, and what claims they could make for what they did during the battle. I hardly consider the Park Service to be a reliable source for this information, but even as you describe it, the placement of the 20th Maine, given what Sykes, Barnes and Vincent knew and could see when Little Round Top was occupied, constituted a normal extension of Vincent's line. It can hardly reasonably be described as an "advanced" position.

As for your topographical comments, there were three main ridges, all running roughly from south-southwest to north-northeast in the arena of the combat. From west to east these were Herr Ridge, Seminary Ridge and Cemetery Ridge. Herr Ridge is a steep-sided ridge, and in fact rises to an elevation greater than any on any other part of the field, except for Round Top. Seminary Ridge is a low rise which peters out not far south of the Cashtown Pike, before feebly rising again and then tapering off well north of a line running west from Little Round Top. Longstreet's staff officers were not happy at all about the lack of defilade for the troops as they made the approach march. Cemetery Ridge is only "high" near the northern end, by Cemetery Hill, and declines slowly until near Little Round Top, it is hardly more than a swelling up from the surrounding terrain. Your description: "The ridges are quite steep sided diabase rises that have a "dumbell" right where Chambnerlains fl;anks were"--can only be applied to Little Round Top and Round Top. If you're going to make silly, incautious statements such as that about the topography of the battlefield, you're going to greatly lessen your credibility in the argument.

For Chamberlain's wound (not wounds), you've shot yourself in the foot once more (pun intended) when you write: "even though he was shot up as badly as anyone." Chamberlain was hit in the foot by a spent musket ball in some accounts, and slightly wounded in the thigh in other accounts.

From the Ohio State University's account of the battle, the page for the second day, a refutation of your account about the 20th Maine occupying a line from Little Round Top to Round Top:



This page, at the site of the National Park Service, which is the source you are claiming, has an animated gif which shows the placement of Vincent's brigage in the course of the fight. The original placement it shows has Vincent's brigade facing west, and more or less in a straight line, curving near the right center to conform to terrain.

Additionally, it disputes your account of nature of the wound:



(By the way, the language used by the Park Service in their account of Chamberlain's heroism is quite florid, and wonderfully in keeping with the sort of 19th century hyperbole in which Chamberlain himself described his invaluable services.)

From the Wikipedia article on Chamberlain:



I'm not "pissed that he survived even though he was shot up as badly as anyone"--both because he was not "shot up as badly" as Reynolds (you don't get any more shot up than dead), or Meredith or Barlow, and because i don't have a personal grudge against the man. My point is that people like Reynolds, Meredith, Barlow and Vincent were just as much responsible, or more so, for the success of the army as Chamberlain, but Chamberlain is the only one who has an extensive fan club, and a propaganda machine, even now, almost a century after his death. It dishonors the others who served there--and in particular, Strong Vincent, who got his fatal wounds rallying the Michigan regiment when they broke from their position. That action was far more crucial to the defense of Little Round Top, and if Vincent hadn't accomplished it (at the eventual cost of his life), Chamberlain and the 20th Maine could have gone and whistled for their plaudits for heroism.

Finally, with regard to the book to which i have already referred in an earlier post, The Gettysburg which Nobody Knows, which was taken from "The Gettysburg Lectures," promoted by the National Military Park, and including the review of Chamberlain's part in the battle of which i have already taken notice, Mr. D. S. Hartwig, historian of the National Military Park writes:

"Gabor Boritt has assembled a collection of fresh, original, and outstanding essays that explore some less familiar aspects of the Gettysburg story, and which challenge the notion that everything has already been said of Gettysburg."

I don't hate Chamberlain, i'm disgusted at the self-promotion he practiced, and which more incredibly, is now being practiced today as "history," largely due to the publication of Mr. Shaara's novel.

How do you feel when people peddle bullshit about geology? How do you feel when some creationist creep with a degree in geology peddles some bullshit to promote himself and to line his pockets? (And i am not comparing you to people like that.)

That's how i feel about careless reading of and narratives which claim to be reliable history.

Farmerman, my attitude toward Chamberlain is not one of hating the man, and certainly not of being pissed that he wasn't killed. It is a response to "popular history," which is not reliable history. Why is Chamberlain now become the heroic icon of all Federal officers in that war?

My earliest response to the Chamberlain account, when i read Shaara's novel, was one of amusement. XI corps was in rear of the army's position on Cemetery Ridge, so it is not reasonble to claim that the Confederates could have taken and held Little Round Top if they had succeeded in driving off Vincent's brigade. It was also one of skepticism that there is ever any one single event which crucially determines an historical event. I do accept that certain aspects of an historical event may be the major contributing factor, such as lead poisoning in the death of the men of Franklin's expedition to the find the northwest passage. But rarely, if ever, is any one factor the only determining factor. Which leaves us to consider just how important the actions of the 20th Maine were in the battle. I long felt that Chamberlain's part was grossly overstated in The Killer Angels. And anyway, it's just a novel. I immediately came to the conclusion that the loss of Little Round Top would not necessarily have been permanent (VI Corps would undoubtedly have been sent to counterattack, and Hood's division was worn out and badly damaged), nor can the successful defense of the position, by all of Vincent's brigade and the New York and Pennsylvania troops sent to reinforce him be reasonably claimed to have been the decisive event of the battle.

But then the motion picture Gettysburg came out, and Shaara's version of events (based on Stewart's "microhistory" of the battle and in particular on Pickett's charge, and on Pullen's history of the 20th Maine) was the basis, apparently, of the screen play. No other single character is focused on the way Chamberlain was in that movie. There is a scene in which Chamberlain, in paternal fashion, explains to a young soldier why they fight. In a subsequent scene, a truly scurrilous one, some captured Confederates are asked why they fight, and they say several times that they are fighting for their "rats," with a silly dramatic emphasis on the inability of the Maine men to understand what they are saying, before finally realizing that they are saying "rights." It was pretty damned pathetic.

I submit to you that after the nasty in-fighting between Chamberain and some of the officers and men of the 20th Maine (especially Lieutenant Melcher), and Colonel Oates in the 1880s and -90s had died away finally, Chamberlain was forgotten, as he never allowed to happen in his lifetime. Then Shaara's novel came out, followed not long after by the movie Gettysburg. So now, Chamberlain has become a figure of folk legend in our times, abetted by the lack of perspective and judgment about the significance of historical events which is common among those who have not read extensively on a subject, and the popularity of that novel and motion picture.

I submit to you that Chamberlain would have remained a forgotten figure in the war had the novel and the movie not been so popular.

Arthur MacArthur planted the colors of his regiment in the works on top of Missionary Ridge just a few months later. To accomplish that, he had to personally lead the men of his regiment to the top of the ridge, and, as it happens, that meant that they had to successfully overrun two other sets of field fortifications to get there. Is MacArthur now considered a national hero of legendary stature? Hardly--most people have never heard of him, and barely know anything about his son Douglas MacArthur.

Chamberlain has attained, long after his death, a fame to which i do not consider him entitled. More importantly, that fame overshadows the important contributions of others to the success of the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg. Finally, Chamberlain's insistence in his lifetime upon his own heroism and the significance of his actions at Gettysburg served to dishonor those many others who contributed to the success of Meade's army, and do a serious disservice to historical accuracy.

I have to give you the issue of Chamberlains wounds. My understanding , from the recount by Boardner was that his CUMULATIVE wounds were presented as wounds suffered at LRT.

BTW, if you had been to LRT, the EAst side is a series of diabase ledges so I was always in agreementg with THE NPS that marching all the regiments was from the NW and circumevnted the ledge areas by filing in like Catholic school kids.
I want you and me to go to Gettysburg sometime and continue this . Once again , the geology and landsurface controlled how all troop movements were accomplished and Ill stick with my viewpoint till it becomes a point of a conference. Ive got two sources that talk of Vincents "Advance" regiemnt was that of Chamberlains Maine , which , during the fighting was the only regiment that ws able to do such movements as turning the gate going downhill. The downhill topo at thatS point was more gentle and not as vertically stepped as the east side. Photos belie the layout since most are taken from distances and a 5 ft ledge line shows up as a minor line.

What does this have to do with Michelle Obama?

...thought I was the only one who noticed that...

And that's your right to do, GB, but it requires you to attach meaning to her words other than that which is normal and customary. But, perhaps you're right ... maybe she was speaking in code.

Well first of all what she said was "in all her adult life" which renders the very title of this thread incorrect. She has not been an adult for 40 years.

No one has said something that is very obvious to me, in all this talk of the "controversy" about what Michelle Obama said.

I watched much of that rally where she said that - live, I think, on C-span.
I saw and heard her say what she did, and it certainly didn't register with me as any kind of heinous anti-American remark. I think I know why that is, too. I think I know why it is that I would be willing to bet a whole LOT of people watching that talk by Michelle didn't think anything LIKE "Oh, I am so offended - she sounds like she hasn't been proud of America all her life."

Ya know why? Because there have been significant portions of my life when I have questioned my country, and thought of its leadership as a bunch of lying greedy power hungry pigs. When I was growing up, learning about hundreds of years of slavery and then many more of Jim Crow followed by denial of civil rights and disenfranchisment and inequality that continues in some forms to this day, I probably couldn't say that I was bursting with pride about "my' country.

I just watched an HBO special about Joe Louis. It detailed how he became a nationwide star after beating max Schelling, how he volunteered for the Army during WWII, and then how his country and countrymen systematically denied him and his generation big portions of all that freedom they had volunteered to fight for. It's just one example of a scenario that played out in millions of families. Including mine.

No, I can't say I've spent my whole adult life busting with pride for my country. And I can easily identify with Michelle Obama saying she is REALLY proud of America and Americans for the first time during this campaign.

I am proud of Americans for seeing Barack Obama's qualifications as being AT LEAST the equal of the embarrassing dolt we had as president since 2000. I am proud of the willingness I have seen in people of all stripes during this campaign to listen and think for themselves. I am proud of the young people whose generation is growing up with a chance to live in an America whose corporate and governmental actions really do live up to all our lofty rhetoric about "equality" and "freedom".

I am proud that I have survived long enough to see Barack Obama be an undeniably viable candidate for the office of the most powerful man in the free world. It tickles the shyt out of me to see how badly that shakes some people up - the same people who had no problem with allowing a man who was a blackout drinker well into his adult life carte blanche with the purse strings and the nuclear button.

So, right on Michelle Obama. I know that the shytstorm has made her backpedal on her statement, but I suspect that in the privacy of her thoughts, she knew exactly what she was saying, and she meant it.

It is only a big-assed scandal to people who needed a reason to dislike Obama anyway.

If she knew exactly what she was saying, then it's a damn shame. She may not be the candidate, but what a flippin embarrassment of a first lady she would be, as far as I'm concerned.



Hardly. It's only something to sweep under the rug by people who are willing to ignore anything and everything, because of their idolatry of the man.

So, according to you, I suppose I'm not a good American for saying I haven't been proud of my country every day of my life? By the way - I'm not sweeping a damn thing anywhere. I'll be glad to talk about this with anyone whose wanting to.