perfidy

Buckethead, there are two points I will concede, IE your promotion of debate, and knowing a lefty to see one, but others I will concede partially, or not at all. I'm not convinced that racism has been reduced quite to the extent that you argue. Anecdotally, the example of the people you work with would indicate a reduction, and it does. But what is the overall and broad extent to which racism has been reduced? Difficult to tell, and I will gladly admit that I don't know the answer. So, point partially conceded. Next, calling for a million Mogadishus and the deaths of American soldiers might very well indicate a hatred for America, or it can be an exaggeration device to oppose the war in the most brutal and shocking terms possible. It could be shock value. While I do not advocate the death of anyone, as I said before, others did say that, and maybe it's out of hatred for America. Point partially conceded. 

As to Reagan and Thatcher winning the Cold War, this is inflammatory and I'm indulging myself, but I'll write it anyway. Big Fucking Deal. What do they want, medals? I won a bunch of schoolyard fights during my adolescence and I'm not looking for a pat on the back. I lost a couple, too, but we won't talk about that. 

Finally, do I hate America? No. There are many things to like about America at the present time. Unlike most European countries, Britain, and Ireland, we have bars open until four, at least in Chicago and Peoria, IL, and elsewhere I'm sure. I haven't been compelled to serve in the military, auto fuel is cheap (compared to Europe/Britain/Ireland), I can vote, the grocery stores have lots of good stuff to eat, I can participate in cultural activities related to both my ethnic groups as opposed to just one, and the list goes on. Are there things I don't like about America? Why, yes. Yes, there are. But back to things I like, and to tie it all together, here's a final question. Do I believe in the necessity of revolution in the United States? No. The system of which you are so fond makes it possible to solve problems constitutionally rather than violent means. It favors the wealthy over the poor in many cases (a thing I don't like), it's slow, and it takes a long time, but patience is a virtue I possess. Otherwise, I couldn't be an effective teacher. Violent revolution would be looking for the quick fix, but there are no quick fixes or easy solutions to societal problems. Another point partially conceded to the Buckethead. 

So there you have it. As my own little post-script, was the American Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? It was. People in the Union could pay money to the government, or hire substitutes to serve in their stead. All the bullshit the postmodernist historians have been spouting lately about how that really wasn't the case, well, hazut! That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years. But I'll veer away from the conspiratorial rant. In the Confederacy, poor men from the backcountry served in the infantry to preserve the Confederacy, slavery, and the state's rights backdoor to the preservation of slavery for the benefit of large plantation owners who were rich, while women on the home front starved. In both cases, poor men died to do the will of wealthy, powerful men.