Posted on 12/03/2017 9:35:22 AM PST by blam
No. But I do have it on order from Amazon and I expect it will arrive shortly.
The reviews at Amazon remind me of the reviews of When In the Course of Human Events. Here's one:
Like most of us I grew up learning that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, and that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator who freed all the slaves admirably once and for all. But over the years this story was just not adding up for me anymore.And here's one about the Sandusky book;For one, when has any country really fought a war only for moral issues and not economic and political ones? With this in mind does it really make sense that American families would send hundreds of thousands of their own children to their graves to fight a war to end slavery in the 1860s? If this was true, and these people felt so strongly about giving rights to the blacks, then why weren't black soldiers allowed to fight alongside white soldiers in our military until the Korean War approximately 90 years after the Civil War ended? Does it make sense that white families would volunteer their sons to fight for this cause if the government still wouldn't allow blacks and whites to fight together for another 90 years?
In addition, why then during the Civil War did Lincoln allow West Virginia to be admitted to the Union as a slave state more than two years after the war began? And why were the slave owners in the North allowed to keep their slaves throughout the entire Civil War? The underlying reason is because the Civil War was much more about money, economics, and politics than it was about slavery.
In this book Charles Adams shows us how the Southern states were simply sick and tired of how they were being treated by the North. 87% of the country's taxes were collected from the people in the South, with the majority of this tax money being spent on projects in the North. The South really wanted to secede from the Union because of this and some other issues, and the North recognized they would be devastated economically if they ever allowed this to happen. In addition, the South controlled the best shipping ports in the Union, and the North recognized they would be dealt a serious blow if they ever lost access to these ports themselves.
So when the war began, the people in the North were told it was all about the importance of preserving the Union, and nothing about ending slavery was mentioned at the time. The book shows letters, quotes, and newspaper articles that were written at the time confirming the North's position on this, and some of the articles came from Europe which had a more unbiased opinion in reporting on the war than the Northern and Southern journalists did.
The book also points out how Lincoln closed down hundreds of newspapers in the North for writing articles against the war, and how he imprisoned politicians for expressing their opposition to the war also. He even went so far as to order the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to be arrested for disagreeing with him.
As it's been said by many over the years, the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. It only declared the slaves in the Southern states not already under Union control to be free from slavery. This Emancipation Proclamation was issued in January of 1863, almost two years after the war began. And when it was issued there were riots in the North because people were angry at the thought of the war being about ending slavery and freeing the blacks, not about preserving the Union for their own economic interests. And as the book points out...racism was actually far worse in the North than it was in the South.
Some of the Northern states allowed slavery, and most of the other Northern states either forbid blacks to live there or forbid them to own any property there. And as far as the abolitionists were concerned, there were those who thought slavery to be immoral, but the most vocal abolitionists were vehemently against slavery because they wanted no blacks living in any state in the Union whatsoever. This explains much about why racism has existed for so long in our country, both in the North and in the South. And surprisingly it was Indiana, a Northern state, that was the one with the highest percentage of its population who eventually became members of the Ku Klux Klan.
One interesting note is the fact that Lincoln's original Emancipation Proclamation was issued in September of 1862, four months before the one we've become familiar with was issued. In the earlier Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln offered the Southern states the right to come back, rejoin the Union, and keep their slaves if they'd agree to end the war. But the Southern states refused to do so, indicating that there was much more at stake for them to fight over than just keeping their slaves.
The idea of making the war look like it was really about slavery came only after it had been fought for about 12-18 months, and the North had been taking a beating both on the battlefields and in the media worldwide. They were being chastised for refusing to allow states to secede from the Union from what was seen as an oppressive government that was taxing the people of the South unjustly. And the international media talked about how ironic it was that the South wanted to secede for almost identical reasons as the original colonies did when they signed the Declaration of Independence and fought the British for their independence in the American Revolution. But in the Civil War, the North was convinced they needed the 87% of the taxes the South had been paying, and they weren't going to let the South secede and stop paying these taxes to them.
This book is one of the best ones I've ever read on any subject, and I definitely recommend it.
Just when you think you've found a man it's absolutely safe to hate, the devil made flesh--and you think Coach Sandusky is that guy--along comes Mark Pendergrast to convince you that without a shadow of a doubt, you could not be more wrong. The only people who are more wrong are all the people who played any part in the railroading the Coach has gotten: the blatant offering up of a scapegoat to the hysterics of political correctness. Pendergrast, an apparently indefatigable researcher, lays out detail after miserable detail in this years-long destruction of a more than merely decent man. This book, read by enough concerned people, is the last possible generative force to gain a re-trial for the Coach. Read it, and act.Assuming these reviews are honest, the common thread is that each "knew" the truth before either read the book; and then had that truth shattered.
I've been following John Ziegler's framingpaterno.com off and on; maybe more off since I heard that Ziegler is or was a NeverTrumper? Anyway Ziegler and I seem to have traveled a similar path on this affair. I started out believing that Paterno did nothing wrong; and gradually came to believe that Sandusky didn't do anything wrong either. Ziegler's website helped to be sure.
As I noted in my earlier comment, I've seen this all before with cases like the Ameraults. Some people just want to make a name for themselves and "protecting" "children" seems to be a good way to do it. Ask Hillary.
ML/NJ
Too many games. I think my approach gets it done with the minimum number of games.
You guarantee a shot for one non-Power Five team, that shouldn’t be hard to determine. And I think one at-large from the Power Five is enough, if you don’t win your conference, you have no right to complain.
One thing I’d like to see is the conferences getting rid of the fixed divisions and re-seeding them each year so you have a better chance of the two best teams facing each other in the Conference Championship game. Especially in the SEC, where in other years, the SEC East was a joke compared to the West. This year it finally worked out with Georgia. But Missouri and Florida were probably at least the fourth or fifth best teams in the conference when they won the East.
do you mean like letting the crappy ones like big10,pac10 and boise state get in?? i think we agree.. no affirmative action for football
I also like the idea of granting a bye to the two best teams, gives teams something to play for even if winning their conference is a foregone conclusion.
a gator fan i presume? can’t agree,, if one conference has the best 4 teams it should be them not other conf champs. no such thing as too many teams .NCAA bb tourny is best event in all history of sports
But who cares about the regular season? That's the problem. The great thing about the current system is that every week, in essence, there is a playoff game.
how would ohio state know?
i understand that since the fb season is relatively short compared to bb (and do like having some importance to the reg seson) but still think its ok that that results of reg season determines seeding. I’d like things better with 3 wildcards to allow for for one conf being stronger or a non p5 to have a better chance to get in
I get it when it comes to false allegations and repressed memories (false) and all of that.
I’m just trying to tell you that I firmly believed JoePa didn’t know anything about the 1998 incident, until I read the Esquire article. My father-in-law knew the man since he was a kid. He attested to what a stickler Paterno was for his schedule, his routine, his devotion to his family and his team. What would be the one thing that would keep JoePa from going on his family trip? Only something super duper duper important.
I am absolutely convinced that JoePa knew of the 1998 incident, and he lied to the grand jury. I do allow that at his advanced age, that he had forgotten. But JoePa knew when it happened in 1998, and Sandusky was sent off within a year.
There are two witnesses that I absolutely believe. The one from 1998, and the most recent one, the one who was found in a compromising position with Sandusky at school. Even if all the others were lying, I still believe these two. Furthermore, I think that Sandusky himself was buggered when he was a kid. He may not have understood that what happened to him was wrong, but it was. Showering with kids is not appropriate, neither your own, nor someone else’s, and soaping them up? Huge no no when they are able to do it on their own. A kid needs only to be a few years old to do that well enough themselves.
I totally believe that Sandusky is a pervert and a pedophile. I also believe JoePa knew, and didn’t do enough to protect those boys.
I’ll bring this discussion back to football and say that, in my mind, the NCAA backtracked on their punishment for PSU, but perhaps the reason they put Ohio State into the playoffs last year, was that clause that said that PSU would be allowed to participate in bowl games after a five year suspension, which would be this year. They couldn’t stop them from playing in the conference championship game, but they weren’t going to let them play in a bowl game, nor for the National Championship. So whether or not Ohio State deserved to be in the top 4 last year, they got there in part because PSU was still in its penalty phase.
Yes!
My thinking is that at least the committee used the same rationale to determine the ranking of OSU-Alabama that they did for OSU-PSU last year. I would have been more upset if they changed the rationale so that it favored OSU two years in a row.
I think the committee was between a rock and a hard place, since either way they went, it would look like they were giving either OSU or Alabama a preference.
Who are the best four teams is all that matters. Go ask Vegas as they play no favorites.
Have not read the entire thread, so I am not sure if this possible scenario has been discussed as Auburn plays UCF in the Peach Bowl:
If UCF wins over Auburn, UCF will be the sole and only undefeated team, and a week later a 1 loss team will become the official National Champion. 2 of the 4 teams vying for it have lost to Auburn. Even Clemson beat Auburn only 14-6.
If Auburn wins, that means that they will have ruined 3 teams undefeated seasons, including the possible champion.
Why even bother ranking UCF or having them compete against a P5 team, if their possible undefeated season disqualifies them from consideration? Auburn and UCF should have never been matched up in a bowl, because Auburn has those wins over 2 of the chosen 4 teams. UCF could and should rightfully claim an “unofficial” National Championship, should they win. Depending on what Auburn teams shows, UCF could beat them. I watched Auburn struggle against Mercer early in the season.
This makes a mockery of this playoff system. But I know why it exists......money.
You mean the same Vegas that said hitlary was a lock?
Auburn will be playing clean shirts by the end of 3rd Q. Roll Tide!
Yes. I heard Mack Brown say, last night, that he used to live in his car, with his mother in the parking lot for awhile. Gene Stalling (Alabama) 'took-a-liking' to him, put him on the team, taught him all the in/outs of coaching to a (then) reluctant young man
. Clemson was unknown when he went to coach there. Says he dances in the locker room with the players and they all love him. Mack Brown said he is the greatest coach in all of football.
$164 million to the University Of Alabama last year.
I've read that Alabama has one of the best football training/playing facilities in the world.
The same Vegas that is in business to make money and is not ruled by emotions.
The entire conference gets money. None are hurting.
That’s why with 2 SEC teams = $$$$$
I wanted to read the article you referred to here so I Googled Esquire Sandusky but there were quite a few links. Maybe you could supply me with one link to information you find convincing. Whenever that book gets here I'll read it with that information in mind.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.