Five Popular Posts Of The Month

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Conservative Liberals – future Porgs of the political America (hopefully).

Conservative Liberals – future Porgs
of the political America (hopefully)?
(Originally posted on 10/21/2017)
and
and

But even more importantly, America is losing a middle ground.
For example, study shows that the number of the Republicans or the Democrats who did not care if their children would marry someone from the opposite party fell from about 70 % in 1958 to about 45 % in 2016; on the contrary, the percentage of people who say they want their children to marry someone from the same party grew from about 30 % to about 60 % (https://www.voanews.com/a/mixed-political-marriages-an-issue-on-rise/3705468.html).
This is just one of the indicators which show that the political dialog has gradually changed to intercultural loathing.
When we see on TV people chanting a “work together” mantra: “Politicians in Washington must stop its petty fighting and start working together for the benefit of the whole Country” – we see people who live in a dream, who do not know the reality, sometimes because they do not want to know it.
For the last twenty years the ideological, cultural, and even emotional divide between the two major parties has only grown.
What would be the reason for them to suddenly forget all the differences and start working together?
None.
Such a reason doesn’t exist.
A politician changes his or her way of acting only when he or she feels that his or her personal political existence is at risk.
That risk does not come any more from the opposite party; for the majority of elected officials the biggest challenge comes from the same party.
Hence,
If we want to force the Democrats and the Republicans to work together,
we have to create a political force strong enough to make them to fear it.
That political force should not base its actions on ideological dogmas (what the Republicans and the Democrats already do).
The new – the third one – political force has to act based on a reason and a common sense.
It does not have to be a party. In fact, it should be a movement open to everyone who accepts the common goals and principles of the movement.
Those common goals and principles of the movement should yet be developed, but some of them can already be set right now.
#1: “Americans first, profits second.”
Trickle-down economics is bull$#it (don't listen to me, listen to the Republicans: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article154691724.html).
No businessman would have ever thought: “Hmm, I got 56 million dollars, now I can stop making money for myself. From now on, everything I make I will give to the government to be distributed among the citizens”.
At the best, a businessman would think: “Hmm, I got so much money, now I can start thinking about carving my name on the human history stone. I’m going to establish a charity (also helps to write off some taxes)”.
If one does not listen what the Washington Republicans say, but watches what the Washington Republicans do, one sees that the Republicans build their politics on the assumption that all people are lazy and stupid (except them, of course, and the Lords of the Money who pay them to do what they do).
Since all people are intrinsically lazy, the only way to make them work is using “a carrot and a stick”.
Since all people are stupid, they need a Leader who will tell them what to do and how to do it. And for that, the Leader can take and have whatever he wants, and it is the Leader who decides what he gives to all those lazy stupid people who he leads to their bright future.
Every registered Republican voter needs to take a look in a mirror and say: “I’m a stupid lazy person, I need a leader who will tell me what to do, and who will decide what I can have”.
Of course, no Republican would do that. Instead, a Republican voter says: “I’m for economic freedom, I’m for business entrepreneurship, I’m for independent people who are doers and creators – so, give me my highly paid job, and secure my economic well-being”.
The last sentence, despite its internal contradiction, includes the seeds of wisdom.
Saying that ALL people have to be entrepreneurs is just wrong. It is a huge exaggeration of the fact that in realty only about 10 % of the population run some kind of an enterprise (https://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/us-entrepreneurship-reaches-record-highs.html; or http://www.asianentrepreneur.org/how-many-people-in-the-world-are-really-entrepreneurs/).
Entrepreneurs represent a very important part of a society; they are responsible for the change (hopefully to the better, a.k.a. progress). But it does not make them any better than the rest of the people. The remaining 90 % of the population is at least equally important; those are the people who let (or don’t let) entrepreneurs make the changes they want to make.
Eliminate all the entrepreneurs, and the society will run into a stagnation (until new entrepreneurs will be born), but it will survive.
Eliminate all the regular folks, and the society will cease to exists (contradictory to the book of a Russian born writer Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosendbuam, also known as Ayn Rand, who wrote “Atlas Shrugged” - a beloved fantasy of every conservative, a fine book, but still is a fantasy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand).
A normally functioning society needs a certain number of entrepreneurs, but they just can’t form the bulk of the society. To make a society stable, to keep it away from chaos and anarchy, the bulk of a society has to be built from steady functioning individuals.
Checks and balances are important not just in politics; they are also important in economy.
Everyone who is not an entrepreneur needs to ask himself or herself a question: “I am not an entrepreneur. Does it make me less important individual?”
If you say “Yes” – congratulations, the Republicans brainwashed you well.
If you say “No” – congratulations, you have a potential to change the American political landscape.
If you said “No”, follow up by saying “I am an individual who lets our leaders to lead until they keep their end of our social bargain. I am ready to work hard. I will learn what I need. I will do what I have to do. In return, I need to have a stable income letting me and my family to live well above a surviving limit.”
The social bargain between those people who make the society stable (90 % of the population, let’s call them “doers”), and those people who make the society move (10% of the population, let’s call them “movers”) should be very simple:
- first, the “doers” get the resources sufficient for them to live well above a surviving limit;
- then, the “movers” can have the rest of the wealth.
This is what “Americans first, profits second” approach means.
It requires a two-step wealth distribution system.
Step one: the wealth created in the society is divided between the “doers” and the “movers”.
Step two: the rest of the wealth is divided between the “movers”.
The rules for wealth distribution have to be constantly assessed and accordingly adjusted.
The human history has known and knows many different systems of wealth distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth), and many examples of a transition from one system to another (https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads).
It is evident, that the current system of distribution of wealth in America does not work for the benefits of many Americans, and needs to be adjusted (https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality).
The Republican party does everything it can to fight any adjustments to the current wealth distribution system, which could decrease that part of the social wealth which goes to already rich people. The most common tactics are lying and scearing. For example, they try to scare "doers" by lying to them that if the "movers" will not get all they money they want, they will not create good jobs for "doers. "Job creators" (this is how the Republicans call "movers") need to take as much money as they want! Only then they will be able to dispense some of that money to the working folks.
When I hear this argument, my first intention is to ask a question - should we really call people who closed more than sixty thousand factories "job creators?" I don't think so (unless, of course, we count jobs they have created in China).
Then I ponder, what would really happen if "movers" would get say 5 % less than they planned? Would they quit their job? Would they move to a different country? Well, maybe they would. But would it destroy America? I don't think so.
I remember a colonel told me once that in the army everyone waits when a general would die, because in that case everyone below him would move one step up on the career ladder. He probably was joking. But the truth is, if our current moguls get upset with us - people - we should start looking for better moguls, for the ones who will not be so easily upset when workers start demanding to keep his end of the social bargain. And I am pretty sure, there is a long line of the potential moguls, who would work for the less. If our current "movers" try to replace some "doers" with the ones who would do the same for less money, we - "doers" should start doing the same, we should start looking for "movers" who would do the same for less money.
The connection between tax cuts for the rich and job creation  may have even worked in the past, but has been broken for at least twenty years. Slowly but surely the Wall Street moguls had imprinted in the brains of all CEOs that there is only one criterion of the quality of their work as a CEO, and that criterion is the price of their company stock; everything else is irrelevant. The result is that all CEOs are squeezing the last penny from everything they can. All Republican's tax plans are completely in the line drawn by the Wall Street. i.e. squeezing "doers" in the favor of "movers" (hoping to get some of it, too).
The Democratic party (except its radical Sandersian wing) also does not want to make any visible changes to the current system.
The radical wing of the Democratic party does not have a solid strategy which implementation would lead to the changes in the current wealth distribution system (“be active” is not really a strategy:  http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/10/spectre.html; this link has links to more posts on the matter).
That is why without a strong third political force one cannot expect any soon any serious social and economic changes.
#2: “Reason first, dogmas second”.
Whatever words we hear from around, from radio or from TV, those are just words. They are not given to us, humans, by an existential force. They are invented by other humans, and as such they are relative and challengeable.
Everything we hear/read/think/say/write is challengeable. That means, every single idea, rule, view, opinion we used to take just as "because" is challengeable.
The words we hear may sound demeaning or uplifting, familiar or ridiculous, boring or exciting. We need to learn how to get through the emotional reaction on what we hear, and get to the meaning of it.
First, we need to understand what people are trying to tell us, and then to compare it with our own views on what we count as right or wrong, what we want to achieve or avoid.
Of course, we also need to be able to be articulate our thoughts about what we count as right or wrong, and what we want to achieve or avoid.
The best way to challenge any well established rules, ideas, views is to start asking questions.
For example, if "corporations are people", shouldn't it also mean that "people are corporations", hence also can declare a bankruptcy to protect their assets against creditors when they cannot pay back?
Or, if "corporations are people", shouldn't it mean that ALL corporations  - i.e. non-people money holders - should pay taxes? Why shouldn't churches and non-profits pay taxes even when they have hundreds of millions of dollars in their volts, and the budget has a huge hole?
When we start rethinking our own views and rules, what helps to avoid chaos in our thoughts is to establish those fundamental principles which govern all our actions.
For me, the most importation rules and views are imprinted and implied in #1 principle: “Americans first, profits second”.
As an example of this approach, let’s enter the debate about the federal budget and the tax code.
The federal budget is in trouble; it has a big deficit, which is growing due to healthcare and entitlement spending (in part).
The Republicans want to cut the funds for the healthcare and entitlement programs.
The Democrats want to increase taxation on the rich.
“Each action has an equally strong but opposite reaction” (in politics physics works, too), hence, a stalemate.
The reason says, that this is a case when people need to start searching for a third path.
And the third path exists.
The third path always exists; people just have to wish to start the search for it.
My suggestion is to move all the healthcare and entitlement related spending outside of the budget.
In that case there will be no problem to discuss (well, tax code still will have lots of loopholes to be fixed, but that requires a different conversation).
I do not suggest to eliminate healthcare and entitlement programs.
Of course, we have to keep them and make them effective and broadly accessible.
Of course, we will need money to pay for them.
But those money should not be regulated by the congressional or White House budgetary committee (or whatever committee regulates the budget).
Instead, the Congress needs to establish two more “federal reserves”: a “healthcare federal reserve”, and an “entitlement federal reserve”.
Each “reserve” will be run by the board of independent appointees.
Each year each board will be calculating the amount of funds needed to pay for the related spending.
Then, that amount will be distributed among “income holders” (individuals or establishments/corporations) accordingly to the equation the board will come up with.
Each “income holder” will have to send a specific amount of money directly to each “reserve”.
That individual amount of money, each “income holder” will have to send to each “reserve”, will depend on the total amount of funds the reserve will need to accumulate on an annual basis.
Hence, every year that amount of money may be different, depending on the needs of the “reserves”.
It cannot and will not be called a “tax”; it will be a “fee” every “income holder” will need to pay.
Imagine you run a big company, and you have to pay healthcare cost for your employees, and it is huge. Maybe you will begin to reaching out to insurers and hospitals and start pushing them to drop the cost down?
Imagine you run a big company, and you pay your employees so little, that they have to apply for federal help. Maybe you will begin to think about raising their wages?
Imagine you run a big company, and you have to pay a big “fee” to the “entitlement federal reserve” because many people across the Country live of unemployment benefits. Maybe you will begin to think about bringing businesses to economically depressed areas, or about helping people to get education sufficient to get a nicely paid position?
It you are a Democrat or a Republican deeply rooted in the dogmas of your party, you will not even try to ponder a possibility of such “reserves” – “it’s never gonna work; “that’s just bull$#t”.
That is why only people who reason first and keep their doctrines in a reality check can find the solutions to drastically unordinary problems of our time.
As conservatives, those people always need to know where the money will be coming from.
As liberals, those people always need to fight for preservation of the democratic freedoms.
That is why I would call such people “Conservative Liberals” (not the other way around, because for me freedoms are above money; in that money is just one of the instruments for preserving and supporting freedoms).
Recent “Star Wars” trailer brought to us a Porg – “an adorable new Star Wars creature”.
No one really knows what it is, but everyone already loves it.
My hope is that very soon Conservative Liberals will become “political Porgs”, and then a political force.
P.S. A reader may say: "Valentin, all your explanations are limited, they do not include many important aspects".  That is absolutely correct! But that is how a reason works.
To understand a complicated phenomenon we always start from the simplest model 
- as long as it grasps the essential features of the phenomenon.
Then we build on it, making it more and more accurate, by making it more and more complicated. To discuss all the aspects of the past, current, and future American politics one post would never be enough; that would require a book (but some other aspects of "what happened" and "what needs to be done" have been discussed in previous posts of this blog - see the links at
 http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/10/spectre.html).
P.P.S. The comments I often get on Facebook tell me that the Democratic party is the one which has passed health care reform, advocates raising the minimum wage, defends Medicare and Medicaid, worker safety, etc. I assume, comments like that mean to defend the Democratic party from my criticism.
To avoid a lengthy discussion (which 9 times out of 10 does not help anyone), I usually try to forward attention to facts. One important fact is that the Democrats has lost the support of many people in the Country (i.e. they literally lost governorships, and legislations in many states); http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/14/the-2016-election-turned-more-state-legi
Why did it happen?
A reason tells us that we can blame (a) the Republicans; (b) the Democrats, or (c) the people – there is nothing else!
Blaming people is counter constructive (plus, it does not explain why did they make the switch).
The Democrats always blame the Republicans for many bad things those did.
And that is exactly why I blame the Democrats for their losses.
The Democrats never look inward; they always look outward searching for excuses. And that is why many people turned away from them (among other reasons). People do not like someone who always accuses others in wrongdoing, but never accepts mistakes done by him. That’s just a human psychology. As I see it, the Republicans have better consultants in human psychology than the Democrats do (President Trump is a living proof of this).
For a long time, many authors have been criticizing the two-party political system. However, only now we see conditions for the third – possibly strong – political force to arise. And the reason for that may happen is NOT the fact that many previously enrolled people go unenrolled. The reason is that inside both major parties we see a growing divide. That may lead to formation of a large number of people who would like to keep being enrolled, but do not want to stay neither with the Republicans nor with the Democrats.
Currently, progressives of all sort are busy with fashioning a big fiery GALA (http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/3dforcedown.html).
At the same time Regressive Republicans developed a network of disinformation: http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/disinformation.html.
Who is a real revolutionary here?
 
The list of previous political posts.
a Short Letter to Jon Ossoff (the principles for moving the progressive agenda ahead)

And this link   http://www.gomars.xyz/op.html  leads to even more post on the matter:

Friday, March 15, 2019

The mission of charter schools.


The mission of charter schools
A recent post in Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilylanghorne/2019/03/14/separating-fact-from-fiction-five-important-findings-about-the-nations-charter-school-landscape) reignites the debate about the mission of charter schools in America.
Foreword: Comments to some statements/"findings"

1.
Meaning: Charter schools do not guaranty anymore the highest performance of their students. They will teach without interference from administration, but the results are - whatever.
2, 3, 4.




Meaning: No for-profit management, no ties with philanthropic organizations, so, charter schools become no different from any other public schools, except the freedom they want.
5.
The statement says "performance varies". Period. Further reading of the article does not include word "performance" anymore. It only describes various stiles or forms of teaching. Charter schools want to be free to chose their style but do not want to guaranty the results.
Meaning: Charter schools do not want to promise good performance.
6.

The article is based on the report prepared by association which promotes charter schools.
Meaning: it is not a report, it is promotional booklet.
It's like asking Donald Trump to assess his own performance as the President. The result is obvious.
But if charter schools become less and less different from regular public schools and do not promise exceptional performance, what do they do, what are they need for? What is the mission of the charter schools?
The answer is in the next part of this post.
Here are some numbers:
Thinking that a tiny portion of schools teaching a tiny portion of students would make an impact on the whole system of public education is a delusion.
Or a deliberate deception.
Even if all charters would perform at the perfect level - which is NOT a case.
So, if charter schools are NOT for reforming public education, what are they for?
In their current form, charter schools solve problems of some parents, some students, some politicians, and some businessmen and businesswomen, but that's that.
The systemic and systematic reformation needs a completely new paradigm: http://www.cognisity.how/2018/02/paradigm.html
And the first people who needs to think about it is teacher unions: https://www.cognisity.how/2018/10/unions.html
Otherwise, millions of dollars will join millions of dollars which have already entered someone's deep pockets - and that is the true mission of charter schools - but 95 % of American students and teachers will not feel any improvement.
The only statement we can make for sure from study charter schools is that a highly professional principal who gathers a team of highly professional teachers and staff, and has a significant budget can develop for students an efficient learning environment.
But any sane person finds it just obvious, doesn't s/he?
The real question - how can we make ALL schools be good schools?
It's doable, but it requires a very different type of thinking about education in general and teacher professional development in particular.
  

 

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Disinformation – the new weapon of Republicans

Recently Mr. Ben Shapiro published a short video titled: “Was America founded on slavery?”
This video is a classic case of BS (as well as, I’m sure, all other his videos, because they have only one purpose – to lie; see below why).
The video follows the well-established strategy for creating disinformation (read, for example, “Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism” by Ronald J. RychlakLt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa; this book gives a great intro into what disinformation is, and how it is made up and used: https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-ebook/dp/B01ED2THK4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511407647&sr=8-1&keywords=disinformation+book).
First, we hear that “some people say this”.
Who?
Someone.
Who, specifically?
No one specifically, no names, no citations, just “some people”.
And then we hear arguments against “this what was said” – which is a lie (but to camouflage the lie, the author always throws in several well-known facts, too).
One more time, the strategy follows theses simple steps:
1. invent a statement which no one makes
2. attribute this statement to your political enemies
3. attack the statement ("debunk" it)
4. point your finger at your political enemies and say - "they are wrong, I am right!"
The central lie (presented as an argument) is always invented by the author, in this case by Mr. Shapiro.
In the video, for example, the central lie is: “Leftists tell us that America was founded on slavery” and “pretend that unites states was unique regardless slavery”.
Again - no names, no actual citations.
Why?
Because they do not exist.
There is no respectful historian who would ever said or wrote that “America was FOUNDED on slavery” – this is the myth, or, fake statement, or – using old fashioned language – just a lie.
As well as there is no respectful historian who would “pretend that unites states was unique regardless slavery”.
Why?
Because every educated person knows that America was not founded on slavery.
As an educated person, I say that some people have been saying that Mr. Ben Shapiro is the master of BS.
But I would disagree with those some people, because what he says is far far from being a work of a master.
There are some facts in the video, which people who never get to learn actual history would find interesting, so the video may have some value as means to popularize history, and to ignite interest to it (like the years when slavery was ended in different countries).
Among others, there is another specific lie I would like to point at; Mr. Shapiro says “the war was to free the slaves”. Did he do it on purpose, or he is just ignorant? Not sure (both?). But the civil war was to preserve the unity of the States. Among the reasons threatening that unity was, of course, slavery.
But even today there are people who would love to return back to slavery, maybe not in the same form, maybe in a “softer” form, like political, economic, intellectual domination, using all means available to deprive people of color from being truly socially and economically equal.
And those people put forward people like Mr. Shapiro to invent and present a net of scientifically-looking but completely false statements (a.k.a. disinformation, a.k.a. lies).
So, watch out!
And ask yourself a question: “Why does Mr. Shapiro and people behind him defend a statement which no one – except them! – makes?”
Because they are scared.
They are scared to lose the power.
They are scared to lose the power due to upcoming changes in the U.S. demographic (more on this topic here: http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/07/peering.html).
They do all they can to “water down” the effect the slavery had and still has on the United States; to make the history of slavery be just one of many historic facts, which – yes – happened in the past, but – like rotary phones – just died out, and should be just forgotten.
Why?
Because, IF the slavery would be “not a big deal, other countries had it, too, and it did not play any major role in the history of the States”, then “there is no reason” to focus on the millions of people of color who for decades have been purposely held at the fringes of the political, social and economic life. Hence, “why bother”, “we all are equal”, and “if they don’t have what we have, it is not our fault”.
Every time when someone says “slavery is not important any more, we can forget it happened”, what he or she actually means is: “I hate when any resources go to help politically, economically, or socially disadvantaged people to advance their political, economic, and social status, because I don’t want to share anything with them”.
Ironically, many of those people call themselves a "Christian".
Naturally, Mr. Shapiro is not alone in his endeavor toward b@#lsh@#ing people, for example, check this link: http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/04/mmoore.html
or
BTW:
Currently, progressives of all sort are busy with fashioning a big fiery GALA (http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/3dforcedown.html).
At the same time Regressive Republicans developed a network of disinformation.
Who is a real revolutionary here?

Appendix:

After watching the video, I placed two comments. Then some people responded to my comments, and I responded to them – it is good way to advancing one’s arguments and debating skills.

Below is that conversation.

To Valentin Voroshilov:

"'Leftists tell us that America was founded on slavery' and 'pretend that unites states was unique regardless slavery'. Again - no names, no actual citations. Why? Because they do not exist."

They do exist. Either you are ignorant or you're being dishonest. Michelle Obama said the United States was founded on slavery. The Young Turks also regurgitate the same talking point. Perhaps you have never heard of Franchesca Ramsey? Let's also not forget Jesse Jackson, Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton, Boyce Watkins, Ben Jealous, Tim Wise, Noel Iganatiev, Jeremiah White, John Henrik Clarke, Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn, James Loewen, and Toure Neblette just to name a few more. There's also publications such as BuzzFeed and Vox that also spew the nonsense of America being founded on slavery.
You should put aside your complacency and do a simple google search.

"There is no respectful historian who would ever said or wrote that 'America was FOUNDED on slavery' – this is the myth, or, fake statement, or – suing old fashioned language – just a lie."

That depends on who you consider a "respectful" historian. The left hails Ward Churchill and Howard Zinn. Both are required reading for many history classes in college. However I digress because neither of these two are actual historians even though many on the left hold them as such.

"There is one lie I would like to point at, Mr. Shapiro says 'the war was to free the slaves'."

Alexander Stephens, who was Vice President of the Confederacy, said that "slavery is the foundation of the Confederacy" in his Cornerstone Speech. Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina all cited slavery as their primary reason for secession from the Union. Jefferson Davis called the Emancipation Proclamation an execrable measure. The Confederate Constitution even bans the abolition of slavery. That should seal the deal on the issue of slavery. Southern denial over slavery as a cause for war comes only after the Civil War ended as a justification for secession. It still lingers to this day. You can make the case the most Southern soldiers didn't fight for slavery, but the government they fought for did (as already laid out above).

"And even till these days there are people who would love to return back to slavery, maybe not in the same form, in a 'softer' form, like political, economic, intellectual domination, using all means available to deprive people of color from being truly socially and economically equal."

Amazing... How to put your own double standard into perspective? I know. How did you phrase it? "No one specifically, no names, no citations, just 'some people'." "Again - no names, no actual citations." Well? Care to address the fact that you blatantly contradicted yourself here Voroshilov? Thanks for clocking in.


From me:

1. Love to see people who can quote.
2. I KNOW people who would love to return back to slavery in a "soft form ", those people are not in the news, so their names will not matter, and that is good for me, because I do NOT make any generalization here. I just say - those people do exist. And they do.
3. Thank you for accepting that for the Confederacy the war was to save the slavery. But it does NOT logically mean that for the opponents (you know who there are, right) the war ALSO was about the same thing; that type of a statement is one of many false equivalence, which work for people who do not trace logical steps.
4. Thanks for trying to reason!
P.S. almost forgot, please, send a link to the transcripts (!) of the Obama's (for example) speech with the exact statement "America was founded on slavery".


To Valentin Voroshilov:

No, the Civil War was to keep slavery in the South. The North Democrats very clearly saw that "white lives" were being sacrificed for "black slavery", and they didn't like it. Abolitionists saw it as a war to free the slaves, and were wholeheartedly behind it, and saw Lincoln as dragging his feet. Lincoln was desperately trying to keep the Union together, and eventually realized that (A) that wasn't going to happen unless slavery was abolished and (B) the war actually provided the best possible way to free the slaves in the South anyway. But the war absolutely was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened without slavery, slavery was clearly the core reason behind every major player in the South and the only message of the South, and the end of slavery was the only major shift due to the war. Oh, and if you don't know who is saying that America was founded on slavery...just turn on freaking MSNBC for a few hours. I can't imagine how you've possibly missed it.

So...the Confederacy was fighting to save slavery... from people who weren't fighting to get rid of it. Yes, _ that makes perfect sense._ Let me know when you've sorted out that particular logical mess.

From me:

Hehe,
Nice return, I like the term “logical mess”,
It is like saying that

America was FOUNDED on the event which happened 84 years AFTER is was founded.

Classic!! In case you need some reference and have no history book handy: Go to the internet and search “when was America founded” (but do not fall for the “Independence Day” movie – that is a fantasy set in the future!).
Then go to the internet and search for “when did Southern states secede from the Union?”
Then write down the years for each event.
Then subtract – you may need a calculator, but those are cheap these days. BTW: do not put in my mouth the words I didn’t say – also classic trick of lairs. I said: quote “the civil war was to preserve the unity of the States. Among the reasons threatening that unity was slavery, of course.”
Got it?
“the civil war was to preserve the UNITY of the States”

From me:

Many people want to “water down” the effect the slavery had and still has on the United States; to make the history of slavery be just one of many historic facts, which – yes – happened in the past, but – like rotary phones – just died out, and should be just forgotten. Why? Because, IF the slavery would be “not a big deal, other countries had it, too, and it did not play any major role in the history of the States”, then “there is no reason” to focus on the millions of people of color who for decades have been purposely held at the fringes of the political, social and economic life. Hence, “why bother”, “we all are equal”, and “if they don’t have what we have, it is not our fault”. Every time when someone says “slavery is not important any more, we can forget it happened”, what he or she actually means is: “I hate when any resources go to help politically, economically, or socially disadvantaged people to advance their political, economic, and social status, because I don’t want to share anything with them”.


If Ben Shapiro blew somebody's mind, that mind might have been not very strong (e.g. easily blown). I guess, apple and the tree situation.