The burden of Northern history

There has been a spate of books on America’s presumed decline in recent days. Most now and ever before compare with the rise and fall of Rome. I’ve always thought we should be compared with two empires, Rome and Athens. Or better yet, Rome and Constantinople, equal and opposite cultural counter-forces for at least 1,000 years. But ours are red and blue and their capitals are New York City and Dallas.

This division was identified by Henry James in the late 1800s. “The Bostonians,” which might be seen as visionary today, contrasted the radical feminist and reformer, Olive, with the Southern cousin Basil, who dines with “a six-shooter and a bowie knife.” When asked, “Don’t you care for human progress?” he answers, “I don’t know — I never saw any.”

Details

Citizenship and the man-child president

I was turned against federalism by two things. First, when I’d walk up to get my first-grader after school in the neighborhood of Duke University in Durham, N.C., I had to keep my hand on my 3-year-old, to keep the students from touching her. They were not bad kids, but they were nervous and erratic because their mothers were addicted to heroin when they were born. The second was the president. Although I had voted for him twice, it appeared to be a mother/child relationship he had with Hillary. Lots of men — especially artists and musicians — have that because it works for them. But when it became approved by a good majority it seemed we had gotten to the end of the difficult work we started back in 1776.

The first was failure on a catastrophic scale. The nervous students had no chance. No doubt many of them are dead already. Except for my kids and maybe three others, the students were all black. The white liberals in the neighborhood, most of whom worked or taught at Duke, would try to get their kids in the “AG” classes in the public school, which contained only two or three students. If they didn’t get in, they’d send them to private schools.

Details

The Real National Debate: Hamilton vs Jefferson

Perhaps the status quo is no longer holding; people are growing more and more dissatisfied with their options, whether democrat or republican.

The truth is, the current two-party system always leaves one half of a country ticked off and feeling oppressed.  This begs the question; is this really what the Founders intended 233 years ago when they signed a document that started the country?  Did they really intend Congress to manipulate 3 Clauses in Article 1 Section 8 so as to rack up a $105 trillion dollar debt?  Did they intend to have the 10th Amendment ridiculed like it was by David Shuster on MSNBC?  Did they really want one-half of the country perpetually angry at the other?

Details