The Truth About 1861-1865

As you probably know, the period in the title of this post is commonly known as the "Civil War." However, it was not a civil war any more than the American "Revolution" was an actual revolution. In fact, the two terms mean the same thing. During one, citizens of a country take up arms and attempt to overthrow their government. The "Civil War" is more accurately called the War Between the States, or even more accurately and much less politically correct War for Southern Independence or even War of Northern Agression. I'm pretty sure you almost never hear those last two names because they equate the South's secession with the early Americans' leaving England. Actually, on secession, the South had just as much if not more reason to secede than the early Americans. Yes, I said they seceded. First among the South's reasons was an extremely damaging import tariff. They depended on imports for many of their supplies such as farming equipment and carriages. The tariff forced them to rely more and more on low quality goods from the North, and not one cent of the tax money from the tariff went to the South, being used instead for building projects in the North. Another common myth is that the war was about slavery, to which I respond: yeah, and maybe pigs can fly. There's no doubt that the issue played a part, but it was mostly with the plantation owners. Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson, the two most well known Confederate generals, both despised slavery, Lee freeing ALL his slaves and Jackson starting a Sunday school for blacks. General Grant, one of the North's most well known, was a slaveowner and said, "If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd hand my sword to the other side." Also, the border states, such as Kentucky and Maryland, were slave states but stayed with the Union. And then there's Lincoln's beloved emancipation proclamation, which made him quite a hero. It didn't take effect until 1862 or 1863, can't remember which. It ONLY applied to the Confederate states, completely ignoring the border states and the absolutely gigantic slave market in D.C. that Lincoln walked past every time he went to visit wounded soldiers in the hospital. I hope you will read your next book on the war with a better understanding of who had the moral high ground.

Reader's Digest vs. National Geographic: The Orangutan

I am really sorry that I haven't posted in forever. I've been meaning to for the past two and a half weeks, but haven't gotten around to it. Anyway, in the latest issue of Reader's Digest there was an article discussing the endangered orangutan. Predictably, they put almost all the blame on evil loggers cutting down habitat, and, predictably, not stating that they probably had to do it to make a little bit of money to survive on (In fact, the Indonesian government pays $16.50 for the right arm of an orangutan, further reducing their numbers). The main cause of habitat destruction in Indonesia is, prepare yourselves, BIOFUELS! As usual, they fail to mention that demand for palm oil for ethanol and other uses encourages more palm oil plantations, and in fact dedicate most of another article to glorifying biofuels. In the latest issue of National Geographic, however, they point out the underlying reason for the problem of constant palm plantation expansion: it's a pretty poor country, and more foreign buyers equals more money. Put yourself in the position of the average Indonesian. Would you rather kill orangutans and end up better off, or save them and remain dirt poor? One study found that when per capita GDP reaches $8000, the public starts to be more concerned about things such as habitat preservation and saving endangered species. I was surprised when NG actually pointed out these problems and including biofuels in the blame. Needless to say, they earned a whole lot of respect frome me.