Are We Rome? Stossel

I caught just a few minutes of this last night, loved what I saw, mirrored some things I've been saying for awhile. Anyone see the whole thing? What'd you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

raisindot

Didn't catch the show, but I read the column.

His arguments fall into the category of selective case-building. He makes the assumption that because certain things that happened in Rome have some parallels here that America is on a track where its demise is invevitable because of these spurious connections. I would argue that most of his parallels aren't even remotely comparable, since Rome stopped being a true Republic the minute it declared Julius Caeser emperor, and senators were appointed, rather than popularly elected. A huge percentage of the population were slaves, and ordinary citizens had few rights and certainly no influence over public policy. From its very beginning, the Roman Empire was essentially a military dictatorship with a puppet senate owned by the special interests of its landed representatives, yet somehow it did manage to last for nearly 700 years.

So I don't think Rome is an appropriate analogy to use when trying to guess when the American as we now know it would end. Frankly, I think the mess in Egypt offers a far more relevant comparison. Because as far as I'm concerned, the U.S. has only lasted this long as a constitutional republic because the military has allowed it to remain so. Personally, I believe that it's far more likely that at some point a group of ambitious and ideologically insane generals--perhaps angered by continuing cuts in military pensions, salaries and budgets--will take control of the nations' nuclear arsenal, air force and navy capabilities and use this as leverage to force a military coup that will remove the president, Congress and the Supreme Court from power. It doesn't matter how strong and longlasting a nation's constitution and democratic principles area if the military isn't willing to abide by its provisions.

And should such a scenario occur, all of the privately owned guns in the country won't be worth a dime if the military decides to take over areas rebelling against its rule--unless the rebels have weapons capable of shooting down F16s and long-range missiles.

Amos Umwhat

For me, the applicable parallels were in foreign policy, and monetary trends, as well as the tendency to mislead the public through red-herrings and pandering to a general appetite for entertainment. Also, while "our representatives" are elected popularly, more and more real power is given over to agencies which answer not to the people, or the republic, but only to themselves.

Vulchor

Did not see it, but I remember in my contemporary political theory class in college each week had a "theme question" that the week tried to revolve (or evolve) around and one week was......"The United States...the Modern Day Rome?"

jthanatos

I wish I could find the papers right now, but everytime I hear this, I am reminded of a historical perspectives class I took back in college. Long story short, people (and smart ones at that) have been predicting the US would fail in 15 or so years every couple of years since 1776. The session itself was pretty amusing, as they had quotes for the laziness of the next generation and destruction of the English language by new slang dating back to the 1600s.

Now I want to see if I can find that book when I get home.

raisindot

Yeah, there has been a long tradition of predicting that the U.S. would fail as a nation.

The first 12 years of so after the U.S. Constitutional became the law of the land. President Washington was probably the central glue that held the nation together, but just barely. During the Adams administration, war with France was barely avoided; had it been declared, chances are the nation would have been ended in the face of a real war with France and a vulturous Britain waiting to sweep up the remains.

The War of 1812, when the British managed to sack Washington and, more ominously, New England states threatened to secede.

The year during Andrew Jackson's administration when South Carolina threatened to secede over something or the other (not slavery). if they had left, other southern states would have followed. Jackson, who until then was pretty anti-federal government, made darned sure SC knew that if they tried it they'd live to regret it.

The Republican primary of 1860. Had Seward, rather than Lincoln, won the presidential nomination and had Seward won the election, the southern states would still have seceded but Seward probably would have lacked the backbone to wage a civil war to restore the Union.

Appomattox, 1865. Had Robert E. Lee agreed to let the Confederate Army keep on fighting as a guerilla force, chances are the Civil War and the Confederacy might still be in place today.

The Great Depression, 1934. Had Roosevelt not started the WPA, the CCC and other programs decided to provide employment for milions of out of work men, there very well could have been massive rebellions by the dispossessed that could have led to revolution. Or at least full-scale massacres of civilians.

1962, The Cuban Missile Crisis. If neither leader had blinked, the cockroaches, rather than humans, would be having this discussion right now.

beatnic

Our constitution is wasted away while Obama plays basketball and golf. All Nero had was a fiddle. Yes, I see the similarity.

Amos Umwhat

You're all right about the perennial predictions of doom, I remember when the bicentennial was coming up people everywhere were pointing out that empires tend to fall at about 2 centuries.

Another analogous thought, though, is the focus outward. Rome grew and prospered, as long as it kept investing in Rome, and bringing money from the outlands in toward the center. When Rome started taking what it had for granted, and spending more and more on controlling the hinterlands, devaluing its currency, imposing back-door taxes because it couldn't sell the idea of straight-forward higher taxes on a public that felt it wasn't getting its money's worth, things started falling apart. Sounds awfully familiar to me.

Amos Umwhat

beatnic:
Our constitution is wasted away while Obama plays basketball and golf. All Nero had was a fiddle. Yes, I see the similarity.

Oh sure "blame Obama"........

beatnic

Amos Umwhat:
beatnic:
Our constitution is wasted away while Obama plays basketball and golf. All Nero had was a fiddle. Yes, I see the similarity.
Oh sure "blame Obama"........

Its' a natural reaction these days. LOL.

raisindot

Amos Umwhat:
You're all right about the perennial predictions of doom, I remember when the bicentennial was coming up people everywhere were pointing out that empires tend to fall at about 2 centuries.

Another analogous thought, though, is the focus outward. Rome grew and prospered, as long as it kept investing in Rome, and bringing money from the outlands in toward the center. When Rome started taking what it had for granted, and spending more and more on controlling the hinterlands, devaluing its currency, imposing back-door taxes because it couldn't sell the idea of straight-forward higher taxes on a public that felt it wasn't getting its money's worth, things started falling apart. Sounds awfully familiar to me.

I think that trying to apply "modern" political/economic attitudes to ancient times is a fallacy. For example, when any nation wanted to levy taxes, they simply did it the old fashioned way--turning the taxpayer upside down and shaking coins out of their pocket. There was nothing that needed to be "sold" to the public, since the public didn't have a say in the matter--either pay up or take a spear in the chest. As far as currency devaluations, one also assumes that everyone in the Roman empire was using the same currency, which certainly wasn't true--most nations had their own local currencies, most of which were privately minted, and bartering for goods was for more common that paying in coin.

In any case, there is no record of "Tea Party"-like revolts against the Roman empire by ordinary citizens--during this times such a thing would have been inconceivable. Really, the only mass rebellions that occurred during the Roman empire were the Jewish rebellions of the 1st and 2nd century C.E. These were religious-based, not economic based, rebellions driven by messianic thinking that turned out to be tragically wrong.

Roman really didn't fall in one big fell swoop. It was a gradual decline that took hundreds of years. You could argue that the splitting of the empire into eastern and western regions started the process, since this encouraging localism at the expense of an "empire-wide good." The sheer size of the thing made it increasingly difficult to administer, especially as local warrior groups began to assert themselves and cut off lines of trade. And after awhile, people in the various regions started thinking more about doing what was best for themselves (and their families and tribes and regions) than what was good for the empire as a whole, especially as military might wanted. One could argue that this situation is paralleled today in the states rights movements, which is not necessarily the same thing as Tea Party movements.

In the end, however, the question is: How do you define "longevity" of an empire or nation-state? The nation of France might be 800 years old, but the republican government it has today is nothing like the absolute monarchy that ruled the country through most of its history. The Britain of today bears no resemblance at all to the feudal state that existed when the Magna Carta was signed by King John. The Russia of Putin's time is an entirely new country that rose out of the ashes of the USSR, which rose out of the ashes of Czarist Russia. Perhaps the only country that can really claim to have an essentially unbroken style of government for the longest period was China. For even though various dynasties took over, mostly through military conquest, the style of government--a dynastic monarchy that was really little more than a puppet of the gigantic and incredibly efficient civil service system--lasted for more than 4,000 years.

Amos Umwhat

raisindot:
Amos Umwhat:
You're all right about the perennial predictions of doom, I remember when the bicentennial was coming up people everywhere were pointing out that empires tend to fall at about 2 centuries.

Another analogous thought, though, is the focus outward. Rome grew and prospered, as long as it kept investing in Rome, and bringing money from the outlands in toward the center. When Rome started taking what it had for granted, and spending more and more on controlling the hinterlands, devaluing its currency, imposing back-door taxes because it couldn't sell the idea of straight-forward higher taxes on a public that felt it wasn't getting its money's worth, things started falling apart. Sounds awfully familiar to me.
I think that trying to apply "modern" political/economic attitudes to ancient times is a fallacy. For example, when any nation wanted to levy taxes, they simply did it the old fashioned way--turning the taxpayer upside down and shaking coins out of their pocket. There was nothing that needed to be "sold" to the public, since the public didn't have a say in the matter--either pay up or take a spear in the chest. As far as currency devaluations, one also assumes that everyone in the Roman empire was using the same currency, which certainly wasn't true--most nations had their own local currencies, most of which were privately minted, and bartering for goods was for more common that paying in coin.

In any case, there is no record of "Tea Party"-like revolts against the Roman empire by ordinary citizens--during this times such a thing would have been inconceivable. Really, the only mass rebellions that occurred during the Roman empire were the Jewish rebellions of the 1st and 2nd century C.E. These were religious-based, not economic based, rebellions driven by messianic thinking that turned out to be tragically wrong.

Roman really didn't fall in one big fell swoop. It was a gradual decline that took hundreds of years. You could argue that the splitting of the empire into eastern and western regions started the process, since this encouraging localism at the expense of an "empire-wide good." The sheer size of the thing made it increasingly difficult to administer, especially as local warrior groups began to assert themselves and cut off lines of trade. And after awhile, people in the various regions started thinking more about doing what was best for themselves (and their families and tribes and regions) than what was good for the empire as a whole, especially as military might wanted. One could argue that this situation is paralleled today in the states rights movements, which is not necessarily the same thing as Tea Party movements.

In the end, however, the question is: How do you define "longevity" of an empire or nation-state? The nation of France might be 800 years old, but the republican government it has today is nothing like the absolute monarchy that ruled the country through most of its history. The Britain of today bears no resemblance at all to the feudal state that existed when the Magna Carta was signed by King John. The Russia of Putin's time is an entirely new country that rose out of the ashes of the USSR, which rose out of the ashes of Czarist Russia. Perhaps the only country that can really claim to have an essentially unbroken style of government for the longest period was China. For even though various dynasties took over, mostly through military conquest, the style of government--a dynastic monarchy that was really little more than a puppet of the gigantic and incredibly efficient civil service system--lasted for more than 4,000 years.

A lot of good points. Cultural relativity being what it is, it's usually nearly impossible to judge, especially with a span of eons between. I think that there was more dissent, unrest, revolt and fear of revolution than you give credence to, though.

Your mention of the TEA party makes me think of something, though.

IF the TEA party could come to grips with the reality of the Boston Tea Party, ie that it was directed as much against Corporate control as against the crown, I'd be a TEA party dues paying member in a heartbeat. What our conservative friends don't seem to grasp is that while yes, the government needs to be watched, monitored, restricted, corporate power needs MORE regulation and restriction than the government, not less.

raisindot

Amos Umwhat:
A lot of good points. Cultural relativity being what it is, it's usually nearly impossible to judge, especially with a span of eons between. I think that there was more dissent, unrest, revolt and fear of revolution than you give credence to, though.

Your mention of the TEA party makes me think of something, though.

IF the TEA party could come to grips with the reality of the Boston Tea Party, ie that it was directed as much against Corporate control as against the crown, I'd be a TEA party dues paying member in a heartbeat. What our conservative friends don't seem to grasp is that while yes, the government needs to be watched, monitored, restricted, corporate power needs MORE regulation and restriction than the government, not less.

Sir, as a Bostonian, I would disagree with the notion that the Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against corporate control (Sam Adams wasn't necessarily trying to overthrow the East India Tea Company; he was opposed to the British government's TAX on East India tea) only because in the 1770s there weren't any true large 'corporations' in Boston to rebel against--the city's businessmen were nearly all small business owners and tradesmen. Even the many colonials--like Washington and Jefferson for example--who bought goods from overseas British merchants never felt the revolution also nullified their debts to British businessmen. By the end of their lives both Washington and Jefferson were hugely in debt to the British, and would never have considering voiding these debts--it just wasn't something a gentleman would do. But, one could argue that Shay's Rebellion in 1787 was a rebellion against American corporate interests, since it was largely comprised of heavily indebted Revolutionary War veterans who hadn't been paid and whose homes were being foreclosed by Boston's bankers.

But, to your second and more important point, even a looney liberal like me would agree with the principles of restricting government power (particularly in monitoring our private activities) if this was accompanied by stricter controls on corporations, starting with the financial industry.

Amos Umwhat

raisindot:
Amos Umwhat:
A lot of good points. Cultural relativity being what it is, it's usually nearly impossible to judge, especially with a span of eons between. I think that there was more dissent, unrest, revolt and fear of revolution than you give credence to, though.

Your mention of the TEA party makes me think of something, though.

IF the TEA party could come to grips with the reality of the Boston Tea Party, ie that it was directed as much against Corporate control as against the crown, I'd be a TEA party dues paying member in a heartbeat. What our conservative friends don't seem to grasp is that while yes, the government needs to be watched, monitored, restricted, corporate power needs MORE regulation and restriction than the government, not less.
Sir, as a Bostonian, I would disagree with the notion that the Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against corporate control (Sam Adams wasn't necessarily trying to overthrow the East India Tea Company; he was opposed to the British government's TAX on East India tea) only because in the 1770s there weren't any true large 'corporations' in Boston to rebel against--the city's businessmen were nearly all small business owners and tradesmen. Even the many colonials--like Washington and Jefferson for example--who bought goods from overseas British merchants never felt the revolution also nullified their debts to British businessmen. By the end of their lives both Washington and Jefferson were hugely in debt to the British, and would never have considering voiding these debts--it just wasn't something a gentleman would do. But, one could argue that Shay's Rebellion in 1787 was a rebellion against American corporate interests, since it was largely comprised of heavily indebted Revolutionary War veterans who hadn't been paid and whose homes were being foreclosed by Boston's bankers.

But, to your second and more important point, even a looney liberal like me would agree with the principles of restricting government power (particularly in monitoring our private activities) if this was accompanied by stricter controls on corporations, starting with the financial industry.

Not disrespecting your heritage, or even disagreeing with your history, but adding to it a little. I'm trying to remember where I learned about the East India connection, which in this context was rather like the connection between GM and the U.S. Govt. back in the '50- '60's, when "what's good for GM IS good for America" was the attitude. I read a collection of Thomas Paines works a few years ago, while my knee was strapped into a CPM machine, and was very interested in events of that time. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Paine's work that I'm remembering, I checked but no index, so I'm thinking it was either Book TV interviewing an author, or maybe something on the History or Discovery channels. At any rate, the gist was that East Indias products were selected, not merely over outrage concerning the Stamp Act, etc, you know, all the well-known sanctioned versions of history, but because of the influence East India held in government decisions. No, they weren't a "Boston Corporation", but their machinations were decidedly shifting tax burdens to the Colonies in order that the stockholders could further benefit. I know I saw it at about that time, (Knee replacement time) which is part of the problem since not only was my knee strapped in, but my attention span was somewhat limited by Percoset.

Thinking of this filling out of history, and back to our original discussion, parallels to Rome, you're certainly right about tax collecting, at the farmer / worker / peasant level. The collections at that level were done by local authorities, and as the Empire spread these guys, far from Rome, must certainly have balked at turning over higher and higher amounts to the central government. These were the seeds of rebellion, after all, they had their own local "armies", and egos.

Also, while certainly local currencies existed, as Jesus asked, "Whose face is on the coin?". During the times of great might, the coins were gold and silver, but, with successive emporers, and poorer times, the coins were amalgams, diluted, hence the habit of biting the coin to see if it's soft gold, or mixed with bronze.

I'm currently reading Howard Zinns "Peoples History of America, 1492 to present" I looked there as well for the East India connection, since it's a telling of the other side of the story, but he doesn't go into it. Good reading though. We all know the story of the Pilgrims, good Christians in search of freedom, not so much the story of the Pequot, thousands of whom inhabited your neck of the woods before those distinguished gentlemen arrived on their shores. I think there's one or two left, or maybe not. The sanctioned and approved histories never tell those stories.

raisindot

Many, many good points, sir, that would totally requote but it might make the requote longer than the message. And, after re-reading several histories of the Tea Party, I stand corrected. The Boston Tea Party was less a tax revolt (since the tea tax had been in place since 1767; it was the only Towhsend Act tax that still existed in 1773) and a revolt against the British government giving the East India Tea Company a total monopoly on tea imports into the Colonies. This was, in effect, an early bailout, since the monopoly (and the taxes it generated) were designed to offset the Company's financial losses. So, yes, Sam Adams and Company were also predecessors of the "99%" movement. How neat!

Amos Umwhat:

I'm currently reading Howard Zinns "Peoples History of America, 1492 to present" I looked there as well for the East India connection, since it's a telling of the other side of the story, but he doesn't go into it. Good reading though. We all know the story of the Pilgrims, good Christians in search of freedom, not so much the story of the Pequot, thousands of whom inhabited your neck of the woods before those distinguished gentlemen arrived on their shores. I think there's one or two left, or maybe not. The sanctioned and approved histories never tell those stories.

I just haven't had the stomach to try Zinn, mainly because I disagree with many (but not all) of his opinions about Israel. If you're looking for another book discussing how the English immigrants wiped out the Native American population in New England, I highly recommend "Plymouth" by Nathaniel Philbrick. For me, it has a lot of 'local appeal' (the town I live in was one of the "praying Indian" towns the English settlers set up for Native Americans who converted to Christianity; this did not end protecting them from being massacred by the English later) and is a real eye opener that dispels forever the myths of the "Thanksgiving lovefest." One of the more interesting things revealed by the book is that when the Pilgrims first reached Massachusetts and travelled along the Cape Cod coastline (before setting in Plymouth) they found a contiguous line of Native American settlements but very few Native Americans. Previous explorers had seen thousands of Native Americans on these shores but by the time the Pilgrims arrived the diseases brought by the Europeans had wiped out most of the local populations--a very early manifestation of biological warfare.

Amos Umwhat

I had not heard of Zinn until a few weeks ago

raisindot

Amos Umwhat:
I had not heard of Zinn until a few weeks ago

Most people outside of leftist academic circles have never heard of him. The biggest shot of mainstream publicity he ever received was when "A People's History" was name-checked by Matt Damon in the movie "Good Will Hunting."

webmost

It's not impossible for a sensible comparison to be made between America and Rome; it's just not likely to happen on TV.

Not only is life different now, but people themselves have changed. A brawny fellow facing a mandatory minumum 25 years eviscerating barbarians face to face will have a very different outlook on life from your average modern fellow typing at a keyboard trying to understand him. Life itself is a different language.

Plus Rome has left us way too many sources. You can't see the trees for the forest. Those who deplore decay will pick one set of similies and ignore certain differences. Those excited by improvement will pick their own set of similies and cite quite another set of differences. There are ample similarities and differences handy to either inclination. Meanwhile, those who believe in the myth of progress (and there appear to be plenty of these delusionals) will deny the relevance of history at all, because this time, they insist, change will all be for the better. The equally plentiful champions of relativity will just refuse to think by comparison, as a despised way of thinking, apparently preferring not to think at all.

Then, too, misleading things stand out. Everyone knows Nero and Caligula. Few have ever read of the five fine emperors beginning with Nerva: Trajan, Hadrian, Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. Little Boots and the fiddler are notorious because they were nefarious. The other five are obscure because they tried hard to be good. It's the same way the news works today. Nasty sells.

The biggest difficulty is this: Any sensible comparison requires lengthy study. You don't get that from a boob toob special, regardless who produces it. Between editing to fit a time slot, sound effects, charismatic faces, political correctness, cherry picked sources, pictures selected to evoke pathos ... there's just not much room left over for real study. It would take a lifetimne, it would take all the thirty or thirty five years allotted us mortals between adulthood and maturity, before an informed decision could confidently be made.

Luckily, we do have a couple fellows who did just that. They each put in the lifetime required. These are the men whose conclusions we ought to lean on.

What made Rome dominate?

Polybius was a learned Greek taken hostage to Rome. He wound up travelling with the legions from Thrace and Dacia at the one extreme to Iberia and the Atlantic coast of Africa at the other. He was present at the sack of Carthage. He was an assistant to one of the Scipios. So he got to see the events first hand, and he interviewed the men who made events happen face to face. Polybius put in 35 years investigating this one fascinating question: How did an obscure riverside village in a remote part of a distant peninsula surrounded by wild barbarians manage in a mere 54 years' time to master the known world, while Greece, despite all it's long noble history of culture, inventiveness, political innovation, riches, and martial fame, was unable to ever put all their poop in one poke long enough to get anywhere?

Here's how Polybius expressed it: You could take seven pieces of silver belonging to the government, lock it in a chest locked in a bigger chest, hand it to the noblest Greek, keep the keys, swear him with a dozen solemn oaths to the gods witnessed by a half dozen notaries on a fistful of papers... yet in two days he would have figured out a way to purloin the money. You could take a chest full of public gold, give it to the average Roman housewife on a handshake, return twenty years later, and she would hand you the chest, the interest on the money, and an accounting.

Probity. That's where Rome started.

What, then, made Rome fall?

Edward Gibbons was a weathy Englishman back in the day when scholarship was not something you gave a quarterback so that an alumnus would get all excited and endow a hall. Scholarship was something you devoted a lifetime to. Gibbons consulted every dusty manuscript and artifact he could find in every significant library accessible to a rich man's means over decades, noting every event and every person he could read about. Then he sat down for eight years surrounded by crates of notes to write and re-write his massive tome. He wanted to answer the baffling question: What made Rome fall?

Here's what he concluded: Christianity dissolved the stuffing out of them. The old mores had filled them with brutal resolve; the new mores filled them with timid dread.

Note how both men lit on character.

________________________________

Make your comparison.

raisindot

Wow, Davis. I agree with just about everything you said!

A little bit of skepticism regarding historians' views. Polybius, after all, was a hostage--for him to say anything that made the Greeks look better than the Romans would have literally been suicide. For another comparison, consider Josephus. He was Jewish and took the wrong side during the Jewish revolt of 67-69 CE, and somehow managed to talk himself out of a sword in the side and became an advisor to the emperor Vespasian and later a historian. He wrote several books on the history of the Jews, serving as their 'self-appointed PR man,' but whenever dealing with Roman vs. Jewish conflicts he always took the side of the Romans, since he certainly knew which side his bread was being buttered on.

I've never read Gibbon (who does, these days?). If he did conclude that Christianity made the Romans 'soft' that's a bit of a spurious argument, given that the empire lasted almost 400 years after Constantine declared Christianity to be the state religion. Gibbon was also writing when the influence of the Enlightenment was at its peak, and one of the cornerstones of this period was a rejection of 'institutional' Christianity as a beneficial force.

That's always the problem with writing history--it's nearly impossible to view it independently of one's own cultural "lens."

Amos Umwhat

webmost:
It's not impossible for a sensible comparison to be made between America and Rome; it's just not likely to happen on TV. Christianity dissolved the stuffing out of them. The old mores had filled them with brutal resolve; the new mores filled them with timid dread.

Note how both men lit on character.

________________________________

Make your comparison.

I have Gibbons, somewhere, but have never read him. I had not heard of Polybius. I see, though, another comparison here. I think about the generation that raised me, WWII / Korean War vets as compared to todays generation and I see a degradation of character, from persons of true character into modern political correctness. I think this may be a similarity of failing.

Thanks very much for the brilliant contribution to the discussion.

webmost

Polybius went to Rome as a hostage, I think there were a thousand hostages for that treaty. Hostages were a common way to guarantee a treaty, That doesn't mean he was a prisoner, much less bound to stay there the rest of his life. He could have gone home, but preferred to travel with the legions. In later days, a king might marry the daughter of the other king to guarantee a treaty. That didn't put her life in danger. The Greeks did not revolt like the Jews, so Josephus is not apt.

Gibbon is a good read, and I recommend it. You need a long cruise at sea to read it all. Takes a year or two. Need time to pause, ponder, re-read, and then jump ahead and back. Nearly everything known about Rome is in his masterful tome. You can make your own conclusions, if you want; but unless you put in the time, you ought to defer either to the guy who was on the ground in the day or to the guy who did put in the time.

At the very least, don't quibble with the fellow who is uniquely qualified to know.

This turns the conversation to comparing character, rather than economics or political structure or Tea Parties or some such business. These are the instructive differences, I think. But even they can be viewed in terms of character. Sure, we all should know that printing money is a bad idea. It has never turned out well. Question is, why do we need to print money?

Hannibal took a Roman army prisoner. Ten thousand of the flower of Roman youth. He sent ten of them to Rome to demand the Senate pay a ransom, or he would kill them all. Made each of the ten swear that he would return. One of the ten forgot his cloak, and went back to fetch it. The Senate debated, said: "Go back and tell Hannibal we can't afford to pay the ransom, because we need all our money to buy new swords and greaves and raise a new army. He'll just have to kill you all. Sorry." The one guy said: "Hey, I forgot my cloak and went back, so I already kept my promise nananananana." They tied him up and sent him back with the other nine. When they returned, Hannibal is said to have remarked: "We have lost the war." Now the Roman mothers who had lost their sons melted down their jewelry to buy spear heads and such.

That's what they spent on, early on. Later, they spent on games and feasts and parades. We, on the other hand, we don't melt down our jewelry, we plunder our grandchildren. Why? To guarantee that banksters and stock swindlers today never miss a bonus. That's what we spend on. 45 billion a month to buy bad mortgages and forty billion a month to buy treasury bonds to paper over the fact we can't sell our paper. This is the new norm. What does that say about character?

I went to jury duty last week. On the way into the courthouse I had to leave my cell phone and pocket knife behind, empty my pockets, remove my belt, raise my hands, and walk through a scanner. They even riffled through my pocket book. In my youth, travelling in Latin America, I was aghast at seeing armed guards lounging in front of every town hall. I was sure glad that I lived in a country where a man was free from this kind of petty tyranny on every hand. Now we have it here. We had posse comitatus back then, an inviolate constitutional guarantee of habeus corpus, the firm expectation that we could never be arrested and jailed without trial, no inkling that any American tyrant would ever feel entitled to assassinate us in any part of the world. Because we were Americans. Proud to be a free people. Pistols in our pockets and liberty in our hearts. Willing to burn barricades and overturn cars in front of the Democratic convention in Chicago.

Today we simply submit. The Chicago machine has moved to DC. We're fine with that. There's been a profound change in character.

I can imagine the newly created serf back in the day, placing his hands between the hands of his new lord, mumbling to himself "safety first". The early Roman would have gone out and stabbed the Goth himself. The later Roman begged his Lord to protect him. Self reliance was our motto. Now our motto is call 911.

O'er the la-and of the regulated
And the home of the circumspect

Play ball!

Amos Umwhat

webmost:

That's what they spent on, early on. Later, they spent on games and feasts and parades. We, on the other hand, we don't melt down our jewelry, we plunder our grandchildren. Why? To guarantee that banksters and stock swindlers today never miss a bonus. That's what we spend on. 45 billion a month to buy bad mortgages and forty billion a month to buy treasury bonds to paper over the fact we can't sell our paper. This is the new norm. What does that say about character?

Amos Umwhat:
I've been shouting this from the rooftops here, people look at me like I'm nuts
In my youth, travelling in Latin America, I was aghast at seeing armed guards lounging in front of every town hall. I was sure glad that I lived in a country where a man was free from this kind of petty tyranny on every hand. Now we have it here.
Amos Umwhat:
I experienced the same in Spain in 1974