Thomas E. Woods, who wrote cover articles for Southern Partisan and other articles for the League of the South, claims he isn't Neo-Confederate in this letter to the editor of The Depaulia, the student newspaper of DePaul University in Chicago. The link to the article is as follows:
http://thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2323§id=4
It is in response to a letter to the editor by Euan Hague, a professor there, that Thomas Woods was a neo-Confederate. Euan Hague's letter unfortunately is no longer online. I printed out copies of both letters from my records.
Thomas E. Woods has a website http://www.thomasewoods.com/ which omits in his resume his articles in Southern Partisan and elsewhere in the Neo-Confederate movement. In his biography, in the lengthy list of periodicals he has contributed to he omits Southern Partisan. His helping to found the League of the South http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php and his activities in the League of the South is omitted.
Also, the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ is omitted from his resume. http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm
Woods does admit to being involved in www.lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org and yet claims not to be neo-Confederate. This is a link to his articles at the Lew Rockwell website. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods-arch.html
Well, I am rather busy now, but I do definitely plan to do a Thomas E. Woods web page and include a bibliography of many of his articles that he has omitted from his web page.
I am curious if he is the same Tom Woods who at Harvard authored an article in Penisula attacking Carol Moseley-Braun for her blocking the renewal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy patent and had his article reprinted in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Ron Paul and the Neo-Confederates
Since the Republican presidential candidate debate the American public that cares anything at all about politics knows who Ron Paul is. Rudy Giuliani did Paul a great favor by angrily attacking him. What better publicity could Ron Paul get? So I have added Ron Paul to my Presidential Candidates 2008 page at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm .
I haven't put the Neo-Confederate material in.
He has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) http://www.mises.org/ and actually attended a LvMI secession conference . Lew Rockwell the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ also. You can visit their website and see what their opinion is of Ron Paul. I will have to spend an hour to get all Ron Paul's involvements on the Presidential Candidates 2008 page. Look for Paul, Ron on my web page.
Some political pundits have said that Giuliani won because he supposedly put Ron Paul in his place. It strikes me as a lot of pious humbug to me. A lot of commentators trying to strike some type of pose, like Giuliani himself. The real winner is Ron Paul. As I said, the American public that cares anything at all about politics now knows Paul exists and prior to the Giuliani outburst not too many people new who he was or had any idea what Paul stood for. Then the Republican establishment media had to denounce Ron Paul since it was a news item. So Ron Paul got additional publicity.
My guess is that even among Republicans the Iraq war is losing its popularity. The three front runners in the Republican party have luke-warm support from a large section of the Republican party on other issues. A lot of Republican and conservative leaders probably are not so happy that their political futures are going to go down with Iraq. A Republican U.S. Senator facing election in 2008 is probably not very happy. A Republican governor up for re-election in 2008 is probably not very happy either. The front runners can't count on the incumbent president to campaign for them in the primaries since that would bring them down for the general elections. The candidates want to be a "Reagan" and not a Bush. Finally, I have a hunch that the public is fed up with focus-group driven candidates.
I don't think that things are locked down. If by this Fall things in Iraq are still going badly Ron Paul may do fairly well in the Republican primaries. The Republicans may be in turmoil.
I do think Ron Paul's election would be a disaster for the nation. However, I don't think that is likely. The same failure of the war in Iraq that might drive Ron Paul to the front ranks of the Republican presidential candidates, will likely drive the Democrats to victories in 2008. However, after the election Ron Paul may no longer be an outsider in Republican party politics.
In watching developments in politics and the Republican party being more and more a regional party of the South and West, I wonder what potential there is for it to be a party with a more Neo-Confederate agenda. Also, by what avenue this may happen. As, I have blogged before, I think the Republican party defeats in 2006 and the falling popularity of the Bush administration has weakened the Republican party establishment's hold on the Republican party agenda. Some development, Ron Paul's success in the primaries or something else might break it and I think a Neo-Confederate agenda might well come rushing into the Republican party. This is all very speculative.
I will get some of Ron Paul's information online over the next few months.
I haven't put the Neo-Confederate material in.
He has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) http://www.mises.org/ and actually attended a LvMI secession conference . Lew Rockwell the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ also. You can visit their website and see what their opinion is of Ron Paul. I will have to spend an hour to get all Ron Paul's involvements on the Presidential Candidates 2008 page. Look for Paul, Ron on my web page.
Some political pundits have said that Giuliani won because he supposedly put Ron Paul in his place. It strikes me as a lot of pious humbug to me. A lot of commentators trying to strike some type of pose, like Giuliani himself. The real winner is Ron Paul. As I said, the American public that cares anything at all about politics now knows Paul exists and prior to the Giuliani outburst not too many people new who he was or had any idea what Paul stood for. Then the Republican establishment media had to denounce Ron Paul since it was a news item. So Ron Paul got additional publicity.
My guess is that even among Republicans the Iraq war is losing its popularity. The three front runners in the Republican party have luke-warm support from a large section of the Republican party on other issues. A lot of Republican and conservative leaders probably are not so happy that their political futures are going to go down with Iraq. A Republican U.S. Senator facing election in 2008 is probably not very happy. A Republican governor up for re-election in 2008 is probably not very happy either. The front runners can't count on the incumbent president to campaign for them in the primaries since that would bring them down for the general elections. The candidates want to be a "Reagan" and not a Bush. Finally, I have a hunch that the public is fed up with focus-group driven candidates.
I don't think that things are locked down. If by this Fall things in Iraq are still going badly Ron Paul may do fairly well in the Republican primaries. The Republicans may be in turmoil.
I do think Ron Paul's election would be a disaster for the nation. However, I don't think that is likely. The same failure of the war in Iraq that might drive Ron Paul to the front ranks of the Republican presidential candidates, will likely drive the Democrats to victories in 2008. However, after the election Ron Paul may no longer be an outsider in Republican party politics.
In watching developments in politics and the Republican party being more and more a regional party of the South and West, I wonder what potential there is for it to be a party with a more Neo-Confederate agenda. Also, by what avenue this may happen. As, I have blogged before, I think the Republican party defeats in 2006 and the falling popularity of the Bush administration has weakened the Republican party establishment's hold on the Republican party agenda. Some development, Ron Paul's success in the primaries or something else might break it and I think a Neo-Confederate agenda might well come rushing into the Republican party. This is all very speculative.
I will get some of Ron Paul's information online over the next few months.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Jerry Falwell and Neo-Confederacy
Just for the record.
Jerry Falwell interviewed in Southern Partisan, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1982, starting page 22 I believe.
Liberty University has Neo-Confederate activities. One year the History department put Jefferson Davis on trial and found him innocent by finding secession legal and justified. Southern Partisan liked the mock trial so much they ran an article on it. (Southern Partisan, Vol. 22 No. 3, May/June 2002, pages 28,39.) Liberty University actually did advance promotion in the Southern Partisan for the event. They had a full page inside back cover ad. (Southern Partisan Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April 2002, page 41.)
A trial of Abraham Lincoln was done also and Lincoln was found guilty of war crimes. See this link http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=49
This year in 2007 Liberty University is having a Robert E. Lee event. That in itself isn't a problem, you could discuss his violation of his sworn oath of allegiance to the United States as an officer. His losing the war. (I know this is being somewhat picky, but he was a general after all.) However, I think it will be a lot of glorification of Lee.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=12471
Jerry Falwell interviewed in Southern Partisan, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1982, starting page 22 I believe.
Liberty University has Neo-Confederate activities. One year the History department put Jefferson Davis on trial and found him innocent by finding secession legal and justified. Southern Partisan liked the mock trial so much they ran an article on it. (Southern Partisan, Vol. 22 No. 3, May/June 2002, pages 28,39.) Liberty University actually did advance promotion in the Southern Partisan for the event. They had a full page inside back cover ad. (Southern Partisan Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April 2002, page 41.)
A trial of Abraham Lincoln was done also and Lincoln was found guilty of war crimes. See this link http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=49
This year in 2007 Liberty University is having a Robert E. Lee event. That in itself isn't a problem, you could discuss his violation of his sworn oath of allegiance to the United States as an officer. His losing the war. (I know this is being somewhat picky, but he was a general after all.) However, I think it will be a lot of glorification of Lee.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=12471
Cheating in School - OFF TOPIC
I have been reading what percentage of students admit to cheating. I am not surprised that some majors have a high percentage of cheating, but I was astounded to read 54% of engineering graduates admit to cheating. I am sure there would be some cheaters in any profession, but 54%!
The person you hurt when you cheat is yourself.
I know very well that this sounds like something that your teacher might say as some saying or lesson. However, it is entirely true and profoundly true. The hurt, the victimization of yourself is profound and deep.
Cheating is wrong also. However, I doubt the efficacy of saying that cheating is morally wrong is sufficient to limit it. I have never cheated, nor even contemplated cheating in the least. I think to cheat would be horrible, you would have to associate with a crummy person -- yourself.
However, back to victimization. If you cheat you will not drive yourself as hard to study to master a topic. You will not learn as much as if you resolved to study hard. This is the lessor loss of cheating. The major loss is that you will not master yourself, challenge yourself, nor test yourself.
To master a topic and get good grades you will have to study hard, and push yourself. You will have to resist doing other activities that might give an evening's fun instead of grinding through and comprehending something. You will have to manage time. You will have to control yourself and know yourself.
If you will feed back on tests and papers and learn your limits, learn what you need to do to be better, you will grow in abilities.
If you cheat you will never know if you have the wherewithal to take a challenge and overcome.
How much preferable to learn skills of learning, tackling tough problems, managing your time and yourself, in learning Chemistry 101, or Medieval History or some other class, than having to start learning these things during a serious challenge in your life after you graduate.
Finally, I don't think cheating will give you much better grades. The students who don't cheat, have discipline, work harder, are abler learners with more effective study habits. You will be mostly competing with the other cheaters.
In the end you will be someone who will cheat again. After all if you rationalize cheating once, why not a thousand times? You will be a person who is ill-equipped to meet hard challenges. A person who can't really push themselves when faced with a tough problem. A person who will instead focus on the easy angle to reach some goal. A person that is not likely to do anything with their lives.
Also, you are a person who isn't that well educated since you didn't learn as much as your grades might indicate and not likely to get much better educated.
Back to the moral reason not to cheat. If you cheat in one activity why wouldn't you cheat in another? Like your significant other?
The person you hurt when you cheat is yourself.
I know very well that this sounds like something that your teacher might say as some saying or lesson. However, it is entirely true and profoundly true. The hurt, the victimization of yourself is profound and deep.
Cheating is wrong also. However, I doubt the efficacy of saying that cheating is morally wrong is sufficient to limit it. I have never cheated, nor even contemplated cheating in the least. I think to cheat would be horrible, you would have to associate with a crummy person -- yourself.
However, back to victimization. If you cheat you will not drive yourself as hard to study to master a topic. You will not learn as much as if you resolved to study hard. This is the lessor loss of cheating. The major loss is that you will not master yourself, challenge yourself, nor test yourself.
To master a topic and get good grades you will have to study hard, and push yourself. You will have to resist doing other activities that might give an evening's fun instead of grinding through and comprehending something. You will have to manage time. You will have to control yourself and know yourself.
If you will feed back on tests and papers and learn your limits, learn what you need to do to be better, you will grow in abilities.
If you cheat you will never know if you have the wherewithal to take a challenge and overcome.
How much preferable to learn skills of learning, tackling tough problems, managing your time and yourself, in learning Chemistry 101, or Medieval History or some other class, than having to start learning these things during a serious challenge in your life after you graduate.
Finally, I don't think cheating will give you much better grades. The students who don't cheat, have discipline, work harder, are abler learners with more effective study habits. You will be mostly competing with the other cheaters.
In the end you will be someone who will cheat again. After all if you rationalize cheating once, why not a thousand times? You will be a person who is ill-equipped to meet hard challenges. A person who can't really push themselves when faced with a tough problem. A person who will instead focus on the easy angle to reach some goal. A person that is not likely to do anything with their lives.
Also, you are a person who isn't that well educated since you didn't learn as much as your grades might indicate and not likely to get much better educated.
Back to the moral reason not to cheat. If you cheat in one activity why wouldn't you cheat in another? Like your significant other?