Facebook sinks further into the sludge.

I experience like so many others a symbiotic relationship with Facebook that I would in the long run wish to abort. The site's obvious positive is that it serves as a conduit for communication with a whole host of friends that I have come to know during the saga of what purports to be my life. 

However I really loathe the way that Facebook's 'moral' guardians  selectively police what it deems appropriate. There is a sinister feel to all of this especially when the 'faceless' army of outsourced checkers go after facts that have merit but sit outside the context of the preferred narrative. Their political bias is all too obvious here. 

One can argue that the company has the right to do just that. Perhaps. Certainly if they actively viewed themselves as part of the press. However Facebook isn't.  They are a platform carrier with added legal protection that is distinct from the media. They are supposed to be neutral with respect to content. This is a crucial difference. 

However it doesn't end here. Facebook is head of the Hydra that is social media and consequently enjoys de facto control over the ever more valuable currency of information. In terms of oligopoly power it is the grandchild of the old school robber barons.

Its presence is everywhere and in collusion with other players (Amazon, Apple etc) it can easily crush competition (as we saw with Parler) thereby weakening alternatives that pose competition.  In this regard it is the medium that carries the message and for those that value freedom of  speech, Facebook's presence as a gatekeeper for what it deems to be correct- speak is extremely problematic. In fact it is downright worrying.

What we need is a viable alternative platform that will be allowed to germinate while nefarious Goliaths such as Facebook, who seem to flout legal safeguards with impunity, are kept in check by the necessary Anti-Trust Legislation. Will the US Congress deliver this? I am not convinced that they are brave enough to do so especially with a Democratic Party majority. The price that one pays could be immense. Reputations in the online can be eviscerated in seconds and crossing the beast has consequences. Herein lies the problem.  We await a much needed David to arise.

Hail El Presidente

Joe Biden's whirlwind use of Executive Orders over the last few days to set in motion policy that circumvents legislative debate have all the hallmarks of the dictatorial impulse. This should concern both sides of the aisle as the slap-in-the-face that it offers Congress is apparent. Since FDR the executive has been gaining ground against the legislative and it is an extremely serious concern. The very notion of checks and balances so envisioned by the Founding Fathers looks to take a backseat if the trend continues and in all likelihood it will. 

However it is hardly surprising as the centralization of power is a mainstay of progressive ideology that defers power to a rule by an elite (who are of course better than the rest of us). At its epicenter this speaks towards totalitarianism. Barack Obama reaffirmed the template for the modern age in his abuse of  power in the way he authorized military action in Libya overriding Congress. He did the same with the 'Dreamer' initiatives.

The controlled media which has abdicated its role as necessary voice of dissension (dragging much of the population with it)  gave him the free pass that was demanded. Democracy does indeed 'die in darkness'. It will get worse.

 

A motivation

I write to chronicle Western History before a great deal of it is turned into mulch by the mainstream nihilists who incessantly defecate on our past.  It is both a labour of love and a pertinent necessity that has untold value. While it sparks my soul it speaks to my intellect  I will with each word spit in the face of the politically motivated revisionism for which I harbour nothing but contempt.

On the Decline...A thought from within.

Decline can come slowly to a society as institutions lose the wherewithal to survive. The rot sets in and never departs with each iteration of apparent repair further worsening the situation. One sees this first in the deterioration of the Arts and Music then in the corruption of academia. That is soon followed by the erosion of higher education. However after a point this all picks up an added drive when pressure events  amplify  the decay into rapid collapse. By that stage the only choice is to delay for the repercussions of the waiting abyss is so severe. 

This is the reality we find ourselves in at present.

Western History 162: What happened during the 1830 Revolutions?

There were several  revolutions in the year 1830 that set as a pretext the stage for the more well known Revolutions of 1848. They were largely driven by liberal and nationalistic popular up swells and had mixed record of success. 

In France the Bourbon monarch Charles X who had replaced Louis XVIII in 1824 was overthrown in the July Revolution. Charles had reigned as an autocrat and stood opposed to liberal reforms. He was replaced by Louis-Philippe, the Duke of Orleans who would go on to rule France as the so-called Citizen King until 1848. Despite his royal roots (he came from the Bourbon-Orléanist branch of the dynasty) the Duke was seen as a reformer by the Liberal revolutionaries.

Liberty leading the People in the July Revolution source: emersonkhent.com

The Belgian Revolution of the 25^th of August 1830 followed a month later. Tension had been growing for sometime between the Dutch and Belgium nations who had been forced into an uneasy union since 1815. The Revolution was ignited by a bourgeoisie revolt in Brussels following the staging of the nationalist opera (La muette de Portici ). The French would come to the aid of the Belgians who would eventually win independence in July 1831 with the German Leopold I emerging as the new nation’s first monarch.

Scenes from the Belgian Revolution source blogs.bu.edu

Revolutionary sentiment showed itself in Italy as well with insurrections breaking out in a number of regions viz. Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna, Perugia.. Many of these were supported by the new French King Louis-Philippe but Austrian intervention following a request by the Pope Gregory XVI, whose papal legations were under threat, resulted in their failure. Still they set the ground for future revolutions and further seeded a growing movement for Italian unification.

Poland was the site in 1830 of revolutionary fervor directed at the Russian overlords. This spread into Lithuania and Belarus but Russian intervention succeeded in crushing the rebellious initiatives. Russia would in turn increase the severity of her control in Poland thereby stifling further Polish nationalistic uprisings.

Polish Revolution 1830 source: akg-images.com

Revolutionary movements did have some success in Switzerland where they forced many of the Cantorial governments to agree to their more demands. This was largely achieved through peaceful means and involved amendments to provisions in the respective constitutions.Kudos to the Swiss for classically and somewhat typically avoiding unnecessary bloodshed.

Why did Britain and France stop being bitter enemies and start becoming allies?

(My answer on Quora)

This is great question but to understand the reason we need to look at the historical manifestation of this rivalry.

During the Middle Ages France and England warred with one another on numerous occasions. In the 12th century alone they faced off four times (1109, 1116, 1123, 1159). The 13th, 14th and 15th centuries were hardly improvements on those early days with the two clashing in no less than nine wars of which the Hundred Years War (1337–1453) and Henry VII’s invasions of Brittany (1488–1492) being the most notorious. In spite of this (or maybe because of it) France did enjoy a strong working relationship with that other enemy of the English - The Scots.

The Hundred Years War Source HISTORY | Watch Full Episodes of Your Favorite Shows

The 16th and 17th were hardly a step upward in the positive direction especially during the turbulent reign of Henry VIII. A further nine wars were added to the CV of both countries with the English finally losing their last remaining French Possession, Calais, in 1560.

Now it is true that many of these wars were ongoing family sagas that were largely dynastic struggles between competing royal houses. The English monarchy was after all more French than English in a sense (this certainly was the case with the Plantagenets). Nevertheless this all worsened the distrust that both people felt for one another. After all it was the common people who shed much of the blood in these conflicts.

In the Post-Westphalian Age, from 1648 forward, when the notion of nationhood became more apparent there was little change. The reign of Louis XIV in France was a particular bloody time. The two powers fought wars in 1666–67, 1689–1697 and 1702–1712 (War of the Spanish Succession) but now they were opposing partners in broader alliances, whose intention was to redraw the continental map to ensure a favorable balance of power and simply acquire more territory in a negotiated settlement.

Louis XIV Source: Biography: Historical & Celebrity Profiles

In the 18th century this continued with five further clashes that were part of the grander rubric of the War of the Austrian Succession (1744–1748) and the Seven Years War (1755/1756–1763). Each side had their allies with the French playing a key role in ensuring a Patriot victor in the American Revolution (1776–1783).

During the French Revolution relations between the countries fared even worse. The British aligned themselves with the Royalist factions of the country and were involved in a number of actions (particularly naval blockades) directed against the Revolutionary Government from 1792 onward.

The situation deteriorated even further during the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815) with Britain proving to be the greatest thorn in the little Corporals side’. The Corsican failed to best the British at sea (losing the battle of Trafalgar in 1805) and he was eventually forced to adopt the Continental System to isolate the old foe economically. This too proved to be a failure with Napoleon underestimating the strength of Britain’s Royal Navy to resist enforcement of the blockade. It didn’t help the French cause that Russia and Spain , two countries that Napoleon anticipated would assist him in this regard, refused to comply with his initiatives. British Expeditionary Forces battled the French in the Spanish Peninsular War as well with the Duke of Wellington earning his pre-Waterloo spurs.

At the end it was the British in alliance with the Prussians and a host of other nation states (the Seventh Coalition) that would bring down Napoleon and ensure that French ambitions across the continent were checked.

Napoleon Bonaparte Source: WSJ

It was in the post 1815 period that the situation started to improve. The British were distrustful of the new system of checks and balances that arose from the Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe that followed the fall of Napoleon. They were particularly weary of the growing resolve of the monarchs of Austria, Prussia and Russia to check Liberal and Nationalistic sentiments across Europe in favour a reactionary walk back to a pre-1789 time. However London did not have the clout to block the Holy Alliance of the continental powers.

Frustrated Britain would embark on a policy of Splendid Isolation (Pax Britannica) for much of the 19th century where it turned its focus to the growth and maintenance of its ever burgeoning Empire. In this respect it largely avoided the revolutionary turmoil that took place across the channel in the revolutionary years of 1830 and 1848.

France would move to a Republic government for a brief period between 1848–1852 before the restoration of the Bonapartist Napoleon III. The latter who would rule until 1870.

Now this is not to say that the French had no imperial ambitions as well but their most pressing concern was the rise of a militaristic Prussia. By all accounts this posed an immerse challenge to French sovereignty.

However in 1853 the bigger problem at the time was Russia and the threat that Romanov ambition posed to a declining Ottoman Empire and by extension to both British and French interests in the Middle East, the Balkans and of course the supply lines to India. It was the threat from Moscow that would bring the two Powers together during the Crimean War (1853–1856) as they allied together (with the Ottomans and Sardinia) to halt Russian expansion in the Caucasus and Black Sea region.

Theatre of the Crimean War Source: University of Florida

Although this was not a war, known for brilliance of tactics, British and French co-operation produced a critical bridgework that would seed further relations in the years to come.

What we had now was a sharp break from close to eight hundred years of hostility (1066 and the Battle of Hastings being the starting point).

But why was this the case? Why did events change for the better?

The big driver behind this relaxing of tension was Britain’s decision to focus largely on its Empire as mentioned and the realization by London that continental involvement should be avoided at all cost. This suited the French initially but as the political environment changed there was a danger that France could be isolated in Europe itself.

Russia was more of a long distance threat but after the Franco-Austrian War of 1859 and humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. French hegemony was now in the cross-hairs of a united Germany, that had rapidly elevated itself to the center of European power politics. France could no longer rely on population numbers to hold her own against the enemy with the vulnerability of Paris to a German westward thrust being all too apparent.

The situation worsened with Germany signing the Dual Alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1878 and it looked like deteriorating even further for France, when the two Dreikaiserbunds were signed by Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia in 1873 and later in 1881. Although both of the agreements broke down they represented an ominous warning to the French of how easily they could be isolated.

The Gallic power needed allies and this would become even more apparent as it appeared that Germany (especially after Bismarck) was harbouring colonial ambitions.

France had been a Republic since 1870 and now more than ever the lines of commonality with English liberalism were starting to merge. The two still clashed on the colonial front (Fashoda Incident in 1898 being a specific case) but for the most part the two nations had successfully divided the globe into respective spheres of influence that they could each tolerate and abide by.

Germany was the new player on the block and as the First and Second Moroccan Crises (1905/06 and 1911) would later show was a likely threat to the Empires of both Western European powers.

It was in anticipation of this and the fact that British themselves had found their resources stretched during the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902) that France and Britain would come together to sign the Entente Cordiale in 1904.

Illustration depicting the Entente Cordiale Source: France Archives

The two former enemies were allies and they carried through their alliance into World War One, the League of Nations and later World War Two. The two countries even joined forces militarily forces to oppose Nasser during the Suez Canal Crisis (1956).

What was once a rivalry fueled by war now looked like a partnership of equals. The two even developed a supersonic plane together – The Concorde.

Now this of course does not means that all of the animosity between the two have been put to rest. Tension simmered between both nations in 1967 when the French President De Gaulle blocked British membership into the Common Market (the forerunner of the EU). The French had earlier blocked British entry in 1963. The fear was that French influence in the emerging would order would be diminished by British entry into the trade body (how times have changed..in the 60s they wanted in…today they want out).

Personalities often clash (Churchill and De Gaulle for example) but it is far cry from the historic past. Today most of the rivalry persists in other less areas of belligerence (Football and Rugby Union being two of them). Each country sits as a Permanent member of the UN Security Council and both are original members of the Big Five Nuclear club.

Time has perhaps healed many a wound or maybe it was just a realization that in a world of far greater threats it is better to put aside one’s differences for now. Viva La Bromance

De Gaulle and Churchill Source: The Churchill Project

Keyboard Warriors

I have been answering questions on Quora for over five years on topics as diverse as Physics, World History, Religion, Teaching, Fatherhood, Covid, Soccer, Politics and Philosophy. All in all it has been a very enjoyable experience and one day I hope to compile my best answers into an anthology for publication.

However even after some time on this site it still astounds me as to how rude people can be in the comment sections when they disagree with you. Many think nothing of going full Ad Hominem despite the fact that said attacks are often removed by Quora's BNBR (Be Nice Be Respectable bots). I personally don't care one way or the other.

Some of it is laughable. Comical in fact. The other day I answered a question on Scientific Objectivity and was attacked personally by somebody who didn't agree with my take on the famed Michelson-Morley Experiment.

The irony of his words in relation to the question were clearly lost on him but I couldn't help but reflect on how the Internet seems to embolden so many to act in a way that they would likely not do should they encounter you on a face-to-face basis. We have selected for Homo keyboard-warrior a sub-species of humanity.

Podcasts

I listen to podcasts regularly but I still find that they don't challenge me as much to think about the topic as books do. I suspect it is a function of the fact that you have a better control of the pace of information with books than you do with podcasts. In a way this is analogous to driving a standard transmission in a car. While it requires more work than the automatic alternative it affords you the true driving experience. This seems to be the case for reading v listening certainly in the realm of non-fiction.

Western History 161: What parliamentary reforms were undertaken in Great Britain and Ireland during the 19th Century?

By the end of the Naploeonic Wars a mere one million people out of a total population of  20 million in all of Great Britain and Ireland could vote. A ground swell of popular sentiment demanded greater enfranchisement. On the 16^th of August 1819 at St Peter's Field in Lancashire, England  the cavalry charged into a demonstration of 60,000 who were demanding the right to vote resulting in the death of 18 individuals and injuries in excess of 400 souls. Ther demonstration was fueled by popular anger against the Corn Laws and other tariffs that elevated corn prices Steep unemployment  and the poor harvest that year that had worsened conditions for many. The events of this tragic day would go down as the Peterloo massacre and would prove to be a defining moment in the history of British political reforms.

The Peterloo Massacre source: The Guardian

One of the leaders of the movement agitating for reform that day was Henry Hunt. To his good fortune Hunt escaped death that day and although imprisoned for two years following the massacre would play an important role in the political drive that ultimately led to the 1832 Reform Act. 

The esteemed orator Henry Hunt source: Spartacus Educational

It was this Reform Act (essentially expansion of the franchise to the Middle Class) that abolished many of the rotten boroughs (seats in parliament representing boroughs with no or very little inhabitants),  gave representation to the cities and offered the vote to small landowners, tenant farmers, householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more. Shopkeepers and some lodger were also enfranchised. What it did not do was expand the vote to women. In fact it barred women from voting by defining a person as a male.  Nevertheless this represented a significant electoral reform. Between 400,000 to 650,000 were added to the Electorate in a single sweep. Although the Act pertained to England similar reforms occurred in Scotland and Ireland.

However popular agitation for expanded reform continued through the Chartist Movement (founded in 1837) which enjoyed working class support. Petitions with over a million signatures were sent to Parliament in 1839, 1842 and 1848. Worker agitation such as that witnessed at Tolpuddle in 1834 was also a recurring feature.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs of 1834 source: historyhome.co.uk. They were six Labours Agricultural Labourers who took a brave stance against their employers over the cutting of their wages. As a result of their action they were exiled to Australia but pardoned two years later (1836), The stance of the six was a defining moment in the history of worker and union rights.

While success was slow initially by 1867 a Second Reform Act (an expansion to the Lower Middle class) was passed. It would serve to double the number of men in England and Wales who could vote. The act removed rotten boroughs from the political landscape and extended the franchise to many households occupied by working class men. Despite its positive development that Act was initially championed by the Conservative Party, for purposes of political utility, as a way of increasing the voting base for the 1868 election which they ironically would still go on to lose. 

In 1872 a further reform act made voting secret and further reduced the powers of  the landlords. Another act in 1884 gave the vote to poor farmers and labourers establishing in principle the notion of ’one man one vote’ for all men above the age of 25. 

Beijing's breakout year

Yes indeed the big winner in 2020 was the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), arguably one of the most evil organizations ever to grace this planet (a category that is of course not devoid of serious competitors).

The death toll alone during the life of Mao Zedong sits at roughly 40 million. A mind boggling number by any standards; that arises from the cumulative horrors of the aftermath of the 1949 Revolution, the Hundred Flowers Campaign (1956) , the Great Leap Forward (1958-1961), the forced takeover of Tibet (1959 onward) and the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution (1968-1976).

Post Mao look no further than the Tiananmen Square massacre (1989).

Today we see the regime acting with extreme brutality towards its Uighur minority, civil rights groups on both the Mainland and Hong Kong, the Falun Gong and various dissidents/whistleblowers. It is the most powerful anti-Democratic force on the globe and its gaining momentum.

In the contemporary CCP-led-China has become an economic juggernaut (courtesy of an ill-conceived Most Favoured Nation trading status) and as the western nations lurch under the manifold of business stagnation and roll backs - that have defined our COVID-19 response - China will only become even more influential.

Certainly in relative terms, its control over our supply lines have been augmented. The self induced paralysis was a godsend for Beijing.

The CCP sits pretty at the apex of a country with a burgeoning trade surplus and an expanding clout. If ‘official’ stats are to be believed China has suffered very little (less than 5000 deaths in a population of 1.4 billion) from the COVID-19 outbreak that originated in its borders and now paralyzes the rest of the world.

However it gets even better for the elitists in the CCP. As of January 21st it will enjoy the benefits of an administration in the Oval Office that looks to treat it with kid gloves. Many of the incoming Biden team have been doing business with CCP related organizations for decades (including the Big Guy himself) and the motivation to push back against CCP directed encroachment in the US, on both a political and an economical and economic level, will likely recede into the background. If the mood does change the CCP can always count on media bots to have its back.

Beijing won big in 2020. These are dark times for the west but for CCP power brokers the so-called annus horribilis will continue to be the gift that cannot stop giving.

Source: Death numbers. Walker Report to the US Congress (1971). May be higher according to Jung Chang and John Halliday. Mao: The Unknown Story.

Thoughts on the January 6th Capitol Breach

The Capitol breach and the unfortunate series of events that followed must be condemned. This should never have happened.. The Nation’s Institutions of Government have to be respected and those who have acted in violation of the law must be prosecuted.

Classical Historian Victor Davis Hanson said it very well here:

The proper conservative response to the violent entry into the Capitol, vandalism, & assaults on law-enforcement is to identify the guilty parties & ensure their arrest. No constitutional republic can tolerate its iconic heart stormed, breached & defiled.

However what did occur that day was not a cop d’etat and it certainly was not analogous to Kristallnacht (Nov 9/10 1938). 90+ Jews were killed, 7000 Jewish businesses were destroyed and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps on Kristallnacht. Historian Richard Evans further attributes 638 suicide deaths to the events of that night. Kristallnacht was a pogrom.

So to Arnold Schwarzenegger (a man who flirted for a long time with an actual Nazi – fellow Austrian Kurt Waldheim) and other historical ignoramuses in the media why don’t you STFU. You are adding nothing to the resolution of the political impasse that exists and are further worsening an already toxic environment.

In addition you are downplaying a critical turning in Holocaust history for political points in the contemporary. Absolutely disgraceful.

Western History 160: What social change legislation impacted Britain in the post-Napoleonic Era?

There were a number of  social reforms in 19^th century Great Britain. These had a significant impact on the national landscape of the nation. Both coal mine and factory legislation placed important restrictions in the use of child labour and the abuse of working women.These included the Peel Act of 1812, the Cotton Mills Act of 1819 and the Factory Acts of 1833 (Shaftesbury Reforms) and 1844. Later Factory Acts were passed in 1867, 1878, 1891 and 1895. 

The Factory Act of 1833 is especially noteworthy as it prohibited the use of children below the age of nine from working in a factory, established a working week of 48 hours for those between 9 and 13 and limited to 12 hours per day for those between 13 and 18. All children below the age of 13 had to have schooling provided. Future acts improved even further on these all important reforms.

Anthony Ashley-Copper aka Lord Shaftesbury (a key social Philanthropist in the UK)

This represented a marked change from the horrendous conditions that existed in 1800.  That were magnified by the strict emphasis on production demand  that so defined the Industrial Revolution. Britain had transitioned into an urban society. In fact by 1851 almost half the population lived in towns or cities. Overcrowding was common and the living environment for the urban poor remained bleak for much of the 19^th century with the writings of Charles Dickens providing somewhat of a glimpse into the reality.

In time various poverty reforms were undertaken to help the sick, the old, orphans and the disabled. The Poor Law (1834) was the end product of the 1832 decision by the Government to improve conditions for the working poor. It  grouped parishes into unions with each union set up to fund a workshop to provide employment for the poor.  Financial relief was looked at for vulnerable groups but programs were not very effective. Initiatives in the 1880s went further in this regard.

Elizabeth Fry -Leading Prison reformer and champion of the rights of the mentally ill

John Howard - Howard was an 18th century Prison reformer whose ideas impacted the 19th century movement to better the rights of prisoners.

There was a definite improvement in education standards across the board and this was consistent with a movement to decriminalize worker representation and unions. The Master and Servant Act of 1867 and the Employers and Workmen Act of 1875 both speak to this initiative. The unions which evolved from the worker’s guild would over time become an important force in British politics.

Source: Urban Population Data

Why do establishment/corporate Democrats seem to fight harder against their own progressive base than the Republicans? Is the Democratic party even liberal regarding economic policy?

 (Asked on Quora. My Answer).

You are correct in noting that the powers that control the Democratic Party are largely corporate and indeed Internationalist in outlook (look at Joe Biden’s cabinet appointees). It is the party of Big Tech/Silicon Valley and global finance. However it cannot win elections unless it has a voting base.

This is the purpose of race/gender Identity politics and the myriad of promises to progressive voices (cancelling student debt, universal healthcare etc) that become all the more apparent in election years before receding into the background in the interim. Albeit with a few bones thrown here and there.

The Establishment has been playing the bait and switch for some time now and the faithful have bought into a narrative, fostered by a compliant media that demonizes any alternative. This perpetuates the cycle and it works where it counts……at the ballot box.

So to answer your question…Why does the Democratic Party push back harder against their base than the GOP? They are simply better at it and are more capable of leveraging the necessary levers of power to ensure their hegemony where it counts.

Why did the Republican Henry Cabot Lodge refuse to ratify the League of Nations?

 (Asked on Quora. My Answer).

Whoa… Lets step back a bit. Henry Cabot Lodge refused to ratify the flawed Treaty of Versailles. Period. The provision regarding the League of Nations was one aspect of this treaty. His principle objection was the League of Nation forced member countries to repel aggression in a way that would have eroded the role of Congress and ultimately flew in the face of American sovereignty. He was correct. In fact Cabot Lodge’s thinking framed the idea of veto power that was put in place when the United Nations was formed in 1945.

Here is some background.

Henry Cabot Lodge was a Republican Senator from Massachusetts. In 1890 he sponsored the Lodge Bill whose intention was to safeguard the African-American vote and guarantee the integrity of the national secret ballot. Unfortunately the bill failed.

Henry Cabot Lodge source www.Britannica.com

He is however best known for his role on foreign affairs where he was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It is in this capacity that he encountered the Treaty of Versailles. Lodge was a visionary and could see how problematic the treaty was. He issued Fourteen Reservations (aka Lodge Reservations) as somewhat of a retort to Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen points to ensure that American sovereignty did not take a back seat to internationalist power politics.

These reservations provide for American opt-outs from various commitments that Lodge believed would harm the United States and drag the country into unnecessary conflict. They also strengthened the role of Congress in the decision to enter war and reaffirmed the Monroe Doctrine and the sphere of American influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Have Liverpool ever parked the bus in a football match?

 Liverpool rarely park the bus but I remember one European tie where they did for two games in a row. It was the 2000/2001 Uefa Cup (forerunner to the Europa League) and Liverpool were drawn in the semi-finals against a very powerful Barcelona who were arguably one of the best teams on the continent.

Robbie Fowler and Gerard Houllier with the UEFA Cup. Source: Trendsmap.

In those days there weren’t so many Champions League placers reserved for the European elite which meant that the UEFA cup had more top quality teams involved in its competition.

The Reds had already knocked out Roma (who won the Serie A that year) and Porto from the competition but Barcelona looked like a different prospect especially after they had blown out their opponents AEK Athens 6–0 on aggregate in the previous round.

Gerard Houllier (who past away last year.. Rest In Peace… Good Sir) was Liverpool’s manager and he wasn’t taking any chances especially against a Barcelona that included De Boer, Puyol, Petit, Rivaldo, Overmars, Guardiola (yes Pep), and Kluiverts. They also had a young Xavi on the bench as well as Dani. This team had at its core key players from the 98 Dutch National team.

Liverpool were over matched but Houllier played it shrewdly over both fixtures. He frustrated the Catalans 0–0 at the Nou Camp and then repeated the performance at Anfield where Liverpool won 1–0 courtesy of a Gary McAllister penalty. Job done. It wasn’t pretty but the Reds were now in the final of the UEFA Cup.

Scottish legend Gary McAllister - Enjoyed a swan song with Liverpool in 2000/2001 source: Transfermarkt (no typo)

Ironically the final turned out to be a real barn burner. Liverpool defeated another Spanish club, Alaves, 5–4 to secure the silverware with a sudden-death overtime goal to secure their third UEFA Cup title and the first since 1976.

2000/2001 was actually a great season in LFC history. They won both the FA Cup and League Cup as well to complete a unique treble.

Which Modern Republican Politicians are Fiscal Conservatives?

 (My Answer on Quora)

There are very few fiscal conservatives in either contemporary party. Period. In fact the only sitting politician I can think of off hand who falls under this heading is Rand Paul. The issue here is that both parties have a tendency to favour deficit spending - to fund their various projects and policy initiatives - which is why the national debt has grown considerably. Accountability is low and it isn’t difficult to spend other people’s money.

Yes there was a budget surplus under Bill Clinton for a few years but he was largely pushed into it by the Gingrich GOP, who controlled the House for much of the Clinton Presidency. This was the closest that we have seen a sitting branch of Congress come toward Fiscal Conservatism. It didn’t last long.

The problem is that Fiscal Conservatism - essentially don’t spend more than you have - is a difficult platform to campaign under as you all too often come out looking like Uncle Scrooge. In an election year this is a tough sell. People talk about Fiscal Conservatism and give lip service to the idea but in the overall scheme it is often short shifted.

Western History 159: What was the end result of the Latin American Wars of Independence?

The formalized drive by the South American and Central American states to win independence from their Spanish and Portuguese overlords began in 1806 with the failed attempt by Francisco de Miranda to forge an independent Venezuela. The impetus for the independence was accelerated by the problems that the Iberian powers (Spain and Portugal) faced on their home soil as a consequence of the turmoil of the Napoleonic Wars. Miguel Hidalgo y Castilla – the future Father of the Mexican nation – also made an attempt to win Independence in 1811 but was unsuccessful. 

In 1813, Simón Bolívar  put together an army to free Venezuela and soon entered Caracas in triumph. He established a Republic that was short-lived before bring forced to flee. Soon afterwards Bolivar would conquer Bogotá (the modern day capital of Colombia). However the Spaniards would fight back against revolutionary sentiments that were springing up around the continent and would for a  few more years take control of all of their former territory, other than the region around the Rio de Plata (modern day Argentina).

Simon Bolivar (1783-1830) source: aa.com.tr

It was here that the War for South American Independence was taken a step further up José de San Martín who secured a victory over Royalist forces at the Battle of Chacabuco in 1817 thereby winning  control of the Chilean city of Santiago. At the battle of Maipú in 1818 he would gain independence for Chile. He would later achieve Independence for both Argentina and Peru as well.

José de San Martín (1778-1850)  source: biography.com

Bolivar in the north though continued to struggle but failed to retake Caracas. However he would go on to defeat the Royalists at the Battle of Boyacá in 1819 eventually liberating New Granada, the territory making up the Northern portion of South America). A new state Gran Colombia was formed in that year with Bolivar as its President. Another win at Carabobo guaranteed Venezuelan Independence by 1821. In the same year Spain recognized the Independence of Mexico.

The Independence momentum picked up more steam. The United States recognized the newly formed South American countries and guaranteed their integrity from foreign interference in what would later become known as the Monroe Doctrine. In 1822 the Spanish suffered a further defeat at Pitchincha with Antonio José de Sucre y Alcalá  (a close friend of Bolivar) emerging as yet another a hero of the Independence struggle.

Antonio José de Sucre y Alcalá source: edukalife.blospot.com

Soon afterwards Ecuador would join the Gran Colombia. Later on  Agustín de Arámburu would be proclaimed as Emperor of Mexico (Agustin I). He would step down after a liberal riot forced his abdication. Mexico would become a Federal Republic in 1824.

The Spanish did try and reclaim lost territory but  their efforts were frustrated by a defeat in Mexico at the Battle of Tampico (1829).

By 1833 the Independence Wars were over. Spanish controlled Latin America (with the sole exception of the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico) was free from the European yoke. However Ecuador and Venezuela had three years earlier split off from Gran Colombia to form separate nations. Ironically Sucre (who was assassinated) and Bolivar (who succumbed to liver disease) would not live to see much of the early developments of these new states. Although the legacy of each man would live on  in the name of the country Bolivia with its constitutional capital Sucre. Both men are considered icons in South American history together with San Martin.

In Portuguese controlled Brazil there was a similar struggle that saw Peter I (the son of the Portuguese king) declare independence from Portugal in 1822.He would be crowned as Emperor Dom Pedro I of Brazil. A successful war for Brazilian Independence raged between 1822 and 1825. A Constitution was adopted in 1824 although Uruguay would break away from the Empire of Brazil in 1825.

South and Central America before and after independence source: https://www.freeman-pedia.com/latin-american-independence

In retrospect the Independence movements  were largely Liberal inspired revolutions that were energized by the writings of the same philosophers (Montesquieu, Rousseau etc) who had inspired the French revolution. In many cases they brought with them much needed reform although in many states they replaced one landed class with another. 

The legacy of monarchy still refused (as was the case in Brazil) to recede into the background in the immediate although in time liberal revolts would carry the day here as well. What the Independence Wars did deliver were several nation states that largely define the South American geopolitical framework today, shifting more of a locus of power westward especially under guarantee from an emerging United Sates. For Spain and Portugal the loss of territory further emphasized the decline that had characterized each of these countries since the 17^th century