another good one, that was recreational rather than assigned (
) was Godbeer's (gotta love that name)
The Sexual Revolution in Early America.
I ma very much afraid that D'Artagnan, and Professor Hobitbob have fastened on a tendentious and misleading interpretation of American History. I have read-Hellfire Nation- and find, although it has a great deal of information in it, it is bizzarely mistaken. It gives a twisted and unbalanced view of American History.
In the first place, Morone thinks that the American people are the book censors, the KKK's, the prohibitionists.
They were and are in America, it is true but they do not constitute the majority.
Morone devotes reams of pages to Anthony Comstock, as if his influence has anything to do with what America is now.
Comstock was, according to Morone, against abortion and obscene literature. It does not seem that the influence of Comstock has been very enduring.
David Bennet's Book- "The Party of Fear" does a much better job than Morone in identifying the "kooks". Bennet recounts the presence of a crackpot "fringe>
Morone goes over the top and says, in essence, that the crackpot fringe have shaped America.
Morone talks about "Victorianism" and the "Social Gospel" in pejorative terms. Morone would subject the New Deal to his scorn.
For, Morone, itis clear, there is one villain and one villain only- Puritanism.
What he does not tell us is that Anglo-American Liberalism was not very tolerant either.
John Locke, the greatest liberal of them all was not tolerant of weither Roman Catholics or Atheists.
Morone, it seems, just picks out the ideas that buttress his thesis and avoids the rest.
Professor Hobibit and D'Artagnan should note that I gave a critique of Morone. I do now shy away from critiques.
It is apparent that they are not able to critique Posner.
Is it because they recognize he is correct or is it because in thier world, only their ideas are worth considering?
Another good book that was interesting was "The Summa Theologica" bu St. Thomas Aquinas"
And I read it all.
I listed it, didn't I?
Yes, the topic of this thread is the Clark Candidacy, is it not?
Well, Jay Leno is certainly a good comedian but he doesn't know as much about Clark as
Clark does.
Clark said on CNN-1/18/03
quote:
Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction"
When O'Brien asked: "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" Clark responded.
Let's see- President Bush lies when he says Hussein has "weapons of Mass Destruction" so he is a liar.
Clark says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction- Is he a liar?
And, Bill Clinton in his speech on December 16,1998, before he ordered a missle attack on Iraq said that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Is he a liar too???
Watching Robert Novak gnawing his dental adhesive last week on CNN's Crossfire, and combining it with the re-read of some of the postings in this thread, a thought has occurred to me:
The prospect of General Wesley Clark as Democratic nominee completely unhinges the GOP.
Novak re-illustrated this phenomenon in his Monday, September 22 Chicago S-T editorial, "The Trouble With Wesley Clark." Novak's transformation of a diplomatic molehill into a bloviated mountain of personal weakness is the latest example of how far out onto that precarious branch of spin desperate ideologues will crawl.
Ultimately, I'm encouraged by the frenzied tone and esoteric nature of Novak's "dirt" on Clark.
Apparently the General's bash-ability potential is a scarce commodity.
I don't know if the London Times is considered an "esoteric" source, as is mentioned by P Diddie, but the article that Clark wrote( not anyone else). reveals that Clark was not Anti-War, at least not as far back as 4/10/03( a whole six months ago.
Clark wrote:
"Liberation is at hand. Liberation-the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. (The liberation) was a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to atacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call".
It is really underhanded for the unrprincipled, immoral and unfair right-wing to attack General Clark by ACTUALLY QUOTING WHAT HE WROTE SIX MONTHS AGO.
Don't they have any shame?????
Italgato wrote:Morone talks about "Victorianism" and the "Social Gospel" in pejorative terms. Morone would subject the New Deal to his scorn.
A) What reason do you have to base this assumption on?
B) Victorianism, as referred to by Morone, is the inclination to view poverty and need as evidence of moral failure. Therefore giving aid to the poor encourages their moral failures and should be avoided. See: Social Darwinism.
c) The Gospel of Wealth states that acquisition of wealth indicates evidence of godliness, and that the more wealth one has, the closer to salvation one is. It also advocates the funding of charities that will allow those lower on the scale of wealth to "improve" tehmselves, i.e. reading rooms, etc... It does not advocate methods that would aid the poor or downtroden for reasons stated above. An example of such a charity was the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore.
D) Since the New Deal programs were designed to help the poor, regardless of "moral" status by direct aid (ex: food) and indirect aid (ex: jobs), why would Morone disagree with them?
I do not have Moron's book now. I will get it tomorrow but to the best of my recollection, Morone said used "Victorianism" and "Social Gospel" as Puritan legacies. To the best of my recollection, the Social Gospel label is placed on the New Deal by Morone.
The "Social Gospel" which springs from Puritanism, Morone says, is a moralism which recognizes that evils arise from irregularities in Society.
Morone is quite at home with Puritanism, it seems, when it is the impetus for the abolition of slavery but he always, to the best of my recollection returns to view Puritanism as the wellspring of some of most abhorrent acts, done in the name of the "Social Gospel"
I explcitily recall the atrocious comment from a lady leader in the WTCU, a firm backer of the Union Movement ( a good part of the Social Gospel)who, although a leader in spreading the social
gospel, Anti-Booze, could not come to condemn the
haning of black males for horrible crimes.
Margaret Sanger, the family planner is viewed as a good guy- Not a KKK'er or a book censor but a good guy who promoted vaginal diaphragms. She also urged the sterilzation of racial inferiors. But she is a good guy, so it's OK.
I found Morone's book to be confused and contradictory.
Again, Morone only has one villain- Puritanism.
As I have already said- Even Liberal leaders hated Catholics and Atheists.
I am sure that some people like Morone's thesis.
I don't.
So, our resident genius critiques a book he hasn't read. Go figure.
hobitbob wrote:So, our resident genius critiques a book he hasn't read. Go figure.
Err ... where did you get
that from?
He has read Hellfire Nation, he already said so a few posts up. All he said in the post above is "I do not have Moron's book now." Ever heard of library books (etc)?
First think - then post. If you dont like the standards your perceive your opponent to have, dont stoop to them yourself either.
Why doesn't he just run as a Republican instead of a phony?
Democrat rivals pounce on Wesley Clark's political history.
Washington-AP -- Retired General Wesley Clark's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination are accusing him of switching parties out of political convenience.
They're pointing to the positive comments Clark made about the Bush administration at a Republican fund-raiser two years ago.
Howard Dean is questioning Clark's judgment in praising Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the speech.
Senator Joseph Lieberman says he was fighting what Clark has called President Bush's "reckless economic strategy" while Clark was raising money for Republicans.
And John Kerry's campaign argues Clark was more specific in his praise of the Bush administration two years ago than he is in explaining why he's a newly minted Democrat.
Hey, I was a Republican once myself.
Caught in time, it's a curable disease.
I voted Reagan the first time. Second time I was smarter.
I voted for Eisenhower, Nixon twice and Reagan once and yet I am a registered democrat. In general I am biased towards the democrats. However, I will vote on the issues not the party. And I will never vote for a left wing democrat That is why I fervently wish that Dean does not get the nomination. Kerry is my first choice. He has the experience and you pretty much know what you are buying. And it is not a huckster from Vermont.
Kerry has presented himself to the nominating process enough times for me to believe he cannot catch the public fancy.
If Bush were to be beaten, the Democrat I would feel 'safest' with would be Kerry.
I probably wouldn't agree with much he did domestically, but he's the only one who wouldn't scare me re: foreign policy.
I am very concerned about Clark and Dean.
Truthfully.
