The Coverups Post
I hate it when politicians are found covering up a scandal far after the truth makes its way into the news. A classic example I have in mind is the infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Ms. Lewinski." What the heck was Clinton thinking? That Starr, et al. would shrug their collective shoulders and say "Oh... well ok then. Our mistake."!? Of course not. Flat-out denying any involvement with Monica just fueled the already growing flames and gave Clinton the fast track to impeachment. That is not to say, however, that it hurt his popularity, but the moral decay of America is something for another blog post.
Less than a decade after Clinton, we have an administration declaring "...no really, they DID have weapons of mass destruction. We just can't find them." What the heck? We're the most advanced military force in the world and we can't find the WMD that our uber-cool espionage equipment told us was most definately there? Wow. What does it say about us when we can prove something exists with our clandestine operations and can't see it at all when we land on the ground? I bought the whole "mobile WMD moved into Syria" thing as a possibility for awhile, but then the Bush administration just sort of dropped that idea when the media pushed them on it.
This phenomenon of suckage in covering up stupid lies is not by any means limited to our nation or time, either. I am sure that more than one Caesar held a public policy that everyone knew to be a farce. There have been three father-son duos to be pope (think that one over). The underlying theme in every instance of the governmental coverup is the idea that with power comes the ability to define reality for the public. This has never been more false than in the post-Watergate world, where the media has made itself a sort of profit-mongering watchdog to the government.
So I conclude in saying that honesty, it turns out, is the best policy. Go figure.
The April 12th Post.
I know it's April 13th, but I had fully intended to post this yesterday. April 12th marks the anniversary of the Confederates firing upon Fort Sumter in 1861, starting the American Civil War. There would be 617,500 men dead by the time it would end in five years. The most brilliant military mind West Point produced in the 19th would surrender in shame (Robert E. Lee), while an alcoholic renegade general would not only stand in victory and be forever hailed as a hero, but would later be President for a full eight years (Ulysses S. Grant).
While we're on the topic, I'll get this out there: the Civil War was primarily an issue of states' rights and the nature of the union of United States. When the industrial North was seen to be using the federal government to put pressure on the South's agricultural way of life (and not protecting Southern crops with tariffs), the South - being of the mind that states had rights before the nation did - broke off to form their own group of semi-independant states, called a Confederation. The United States actually had a confederation under the aptly named Articles of Confederation, which stood until the Constitution was drafted.
What I am trying to say is that though I am very northeast-centrist in my view of American History and am very glad the United States was not dissolved into two parts and slavery was abolished, I can earnestly feel for the South's cause and do not somehow blame our Southern bretheren for the Civil War, something that was rampant in the Reconstruction period and still is prevelant today. Besides, the Confederates' cause is appealing to me in my nerdy fascination with alternate history. How would everything have panned out had the CSA won? Before even fifty years were through, I can tell you that the Russo-Japanese war would not have ended in a stalemate (long story) and Venezuela would have been a German possession (longer story). World War I would have gone on and on and on and on and Would War II may never have happened.
Before I lose too many people out of a general disinterest for historical rambling, I might also point out that one of my favorite politicians of all time, Henry Clay, was actually born on April 12, 1777. I will be posting about how he should have been president soon, I promise, but first I'd like to draw and interesting parallel to the Fort Sumter attack by pointing out that it was Henry Clay's "Missouri Compromise" and "Great Compromise" that caused the Civil War to start in the 1860s rather than the 1840s or '50s. Ironic that P.T. Beauregard would then fire the opening shot of the Civil War on Clay's 84th birthday.
The End.
The "I've Lost What Readership I Had" Post.
So, here it is. I haven't posted in a month or more. My period of non-posting started when I because a blogger adulterer, opening a second blog: bethanyvp.blogspot.com - a gimmick which went over very well and perhaps helped get me elected student council vice president at BBC. But with the election over, I neglected to come back here to my first love, and thus my blogging was non-existent for awhile.
But not anymore. I have been thinking of the following topics as of late:
- How Henry Clay should have been president.
- How we never would have been able to win WWII in today's culture.
- How it sucks that an entire generation of my peers cannot bring themselves to respect the office of POTUS.
- How to build a better mousetrap.
- How many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll lollipop (1... 2... 3! 3. Stupid Owl.)
So I imagine all you out there in bloggerland will be expectantly awaiting this blog to be back up and running. Let's just say my last paper of the year is due at 2:30 on Thursday and my next computer lab shift is at 4:00 on Thursday. You can connect the dots from there, I'm sure.
Until then...
