1. Learned that my job is, apparently, outsourceable to India. I knew my free-trade marketeering would somehow come back to haunt me — and it has, in economic Thunderdome-style (two men enter, one man leaves). Bring it on, baby!
2. Defended Lincoln on Vox Day’s blog. The comments are especially fun; I had no idea that so much confidence and so little knowledge could comfortably co-exist in so many people. (Ed — you new to the blogosphere, chum? Good point.) Incidentally, the above slam does not apply to Mr. Day himself.
Update: So it’s clear, my job is now outsourceable to India. It has not (yet) been outsourced to India. (Nor do I expect that it will.)
von, that reads like you were fired…is that what it means?
Umm, no. Still have my job. Hmmm. Maybe an update is appropriate.
Von, your foray into the pro-secession demimonde reminds me of a medieval saint missionizing amongst the heathens. Maybe someday they will name an alphabet after you. Or have a holiday where we can all drink strangely colored beer.
As to the apology we ostensibly owe “England,” you might have pointed out that by the Treaty of Paris the United Kingdom acquiesced in our independence. (Maybe you did so later in the comments — there’s only some much of this sort of thing one can read in a sitting).
As for individual secession, it is possible to renounce one’s citizenship.
“Incidentally, the following slam does not apply to Mr. Day himself.”
Preceding?
Given that you’ve (fast and loose here) got Vodkapundit on the blogroll I tend to take your (ditto) recommendations on blogs with some skepticism.
Correcting the typo, Rilkefan. And, as always, caveat emptor.
interesting thread. i’d like to follow up on the question of secession without, however, dealing with some of the raving lunatics.
now, if I read the historical documents correctly, California was admitted to the Union by HR 1 of the 31st Congress. So, California’s citizens petitioned, and Congress agreed. why can’t the same procedure be followed for succession as accession? If the citizens of California petition the Congress to be released from the union of the United States, why doesn’t Congress have the authority to grant that request?
Is your answer that Art. IV, sec 3 allows for states to be admitted, but contains no procedure for secession?
Cheers,
Francis
I don’t see why in some overarching morality the South didn’t have the right to divorce the North, even for reasons repugnant to anyone sensible. I see this more or less the same way I see Taiwanese independence – might doesn’t make right, and self-determination trumps convenience.
Rilkefan: I see this more or less the same way I see Taiwanese independence – might doesn’t make right, and self-determination trumps convenience.
I would concede this as a fair point, if not for the fact that 3.9 million Southerners were given no choice at all in the matter: indeed, the secession of the South was intended to ensure that one third of the population of the Confederacy would never, ever, be allowed self-determination.
Just as you can’t argue you’re in favor of democracy when you’re only in favor of the “right people” winning elections, you cannot argue you’re in favor of self-determination and against might-makes-right when you’re only in favor of self-determination for the right people; still less when those people want self-determination in order to continue a might-makes-right policy for those to whom you deny self-determination.
In short, in any “overarching morality”, so long as the South wanted independence in order to keep owning slaves, they had no right to independence: they were not granting independence to others.
Welcome to the club!
Most creepy sentence in von’t fruitless discussion:
“Forrest’s KKK was disbanded in the late 1880’s after it was no longer needed to police the carpetbaggers who were terrorizing the south.”
Nice to see people defending both the CSA *and* the KKK.
[shudder]