Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "PragerU" channel.

That guy was (? is) at MIT and is an atmospheric physicist. And THAT kind of sloppy arguing is his professional stance ?? - I wouldn't mind hearing his opposing opinion if the could be bothered to be correct on details. No, IPCC scientiets are NOT the main group that states that climate is happening (with UNPRECEDENTED SPEED no less). The global mean temperatur increased "slightly" by 1,8 F or 1 degree Celsius. THAT IS HUGE - it takes a LOT to achieve that over the planet, two thirds of which are covered with deep water. that takes immense quantities of heat - and of course that extra temperature plays a role and changes the system. - Well I DO HOPE he is getting paid well for that rubbish. "The climate has always changed" .... facepalm. Yes, over 100,000 or 10,000 years - which was thought to be a very FAST change. Which could result in extinction events. Those are never good for the top predators in the system (hint: homo sapiens).
14
@theonefisher The rich slaveholders that ran the show in the Southern states with the economic model of cash crops produced on planations with slave labor were aghast that someone like Lincoln could even get elected as president. He was not even the most anti slavery candidate in the race. And they wanted MORE states to become slave holding states, seize Cuba and introduce slavery there etc. Likely also plans for Mexico.
7
@theonefisher Never mind what Lincoln would push for (compared to how he campaigned to win) the oligarchs of the South were unpleasantly reminded that he was not a one off, and that issue would come up again. Time was not on their side, so they decided to fight for their right to have chattle slavery there and then. Plus the slaveholders wanted slavery to expand into the territories (and the countries the U.S. could attack and seize later). Think Mexico or Cuba. The Dixie Mason line compromise of 1850 did not allow for NEW slave holding states, they feared they would be outnumbered over time in Congress by states that did not profit from slavery and therefore could afford to have the moral highground on slavery. (Outnumbered, as result of elections, if territories became states, or states split. comparable to the splits of the Carolinas or the Dakotas). When Lincoln made them offers and signalled the willingness to compromise respectively to stand down (but no expansion to new states) - the slaveholders of course had to slightly change their rationale why they broke off anyway. Breaking up the union was a big thing after all, and "we think time and public opinion will not be on our side in the next 10 - 20 years even if we find a truce now" does not sound as good, if the other scenario is a big war. The Southern plantation owners needed to sell the draft to the poor white men, there were not enough that benefitted form slavery (big time) to win the war, not even close. White trash that did not benefit from slavery (on the contrary) was needed for the war. Those poor white men had no riches and investments to defend, and they and their families could only lose in a war - so many of them would have been in the "Let's wait and see" camp, even if they were positive about their states being slave holding states. (a success of centuries of propaganda and Divide and Conquer). After all slavery was not under immediate attack, not after Lincoln immediately signalled the willingness to compromise. Many slaveholders had invested and bought slaves using loans, I think some were highly leveraged with their investments, they (and the banks) needed to have planning security. They could sell to other nations, they did not necessarily need the trade with the Northern states that much (and one could expect relations would recover, after all the Colonies later also did trade with the British empire, after the Independence war was over). If it was not Lincoln, it was going to be another one in the next 4 / 8 / 12 years. This time emboldened by permanent / expanding majorites supporting the case of aboliton in Congress, and by even higher public support. There was a growing middle class in the North, even the low income people were a little better educated could read, share newspapers. Not toforget the growing Labor movement. They may have been racist against free black people and exploited Asians and Irish, Polish, Jewish, Italian, .... immigrants. But they all incl. desperately poor, despised immigrants (Irish potatoe famines triggered mass emigration, 1845 - 1852) sensed that their states getting slavery was not in their economic interest. Would not happen, but maybe the Southern states would compete in their fields of business later ? with unpaid labor of slaves ? Smaller farmers in the North had figured out the same. They could afford to have the morally inspired position, as they did not benefit from slavery or were potentially threatened by it economicaly. Not even the (upper) middle class in the North benefitted that much (the North profitted indirectly from slavery, too). A person can have racial bias against non-whites - and still think that CHATTEL slavery, auctioning, whipping people and using them to breed takes it too far. There was a growing segment of people in the North that found chattel slavery to be a moral atrocity - while otheres supported that stance for economic reasons (it does not hurt if economic interests align with the moral highground).
7
@theonefisher it was the SOUTH that triggered and wanted the war, and the North / Lincoln right after his election that offered a compromise. The North could have survived just fine (but did not want to lose the South, I wonder to what degree bank interests played a role, plenty of loans for the investments of slave holders. I do not think the South paid a lot of taxes into federal coffers). This was 1860, Industrial Revolution in full swing and they had more natural resources in the North. Indeed 7 out of 8 migrants (plenty of poor European migrants coming) settled in the North. Share of farm workers dropped from 70 to 40 % between 1800 and 1860.
6
@theonefisher The South did not have any specific resources that the North needed. And it was the SOUTH that WANTED the WAR (right then), and refused to take the compromise immedidately offered by Lincoln (keep slavery but no expansion). The North had coal, timber, iron other minerals, enough water, wheat, ... POPULATION GROWTH, the more developed railway system (by far). For imperialism in Latin America the South certainly was needed. The manpower, the land, the geostrategic strength. The cash crops could have been produced elsewhere (think tobacco from Cuba). If they needed to buy them from another nation (like the Confederacy) they could as well buy from the British empire, the French, or rush to get other colonies that had the same growing conditions as the South. Cotton ? Well there was India and of course ramping up hemp production. But neither block of the Divided States could have pursued imperialism as effectively, and to a degree they would have had a target on their back for imperialistic interests of the European monarchies. That may have been on the mind of Lincoln but left the Southern aristocraZy unfazed ... well they also overestimated their ability to win the sure to come war with the North. Which they chose to have and chose to have at that time. As for timing - they got that right, the North was only going to become stronger, had the economic model of the future, they attracted much more immigration, because they had the manufacturing job. A lot of labor in the South was in agrictulture done by slaves. But slaves do not double as soldiers because they would defect every chance they get. There were not enough job opportunities for a LOT of white migrants, and the existing white families had less social mobility than their Northern counterparts. So they did not even have enough jobs for white low income people that were already there. Not sure to what degree losing so many able bodied males in the Civil War hindered the population growth of the whites in the South (or the effects on the economy. Young females would not find husbands, and if a fallen or injured soldier was a family man - the family had to live somehow). Being a magnet for immigration is a major disadvantage for future wars. In society then a part of the men was needed to produce food and militay equipment while others were drafted. (machines could not enable women to subsitute for males despite having less physical strength). btw there are reports that the Southeners felt beleagered and a lot of propaganda was used on whites who were too poor to own slaves. Why non-slavholding Southeners Fought - American Battlefield Trust Vigilantes also went after whites suspected to help fugitive slaves. Kinda police state. A Charleston lawyer: the city is living under a reign of terror. I guess in case of a Secession w/o war the feudal overlords would have cracked down on poor whites as well - if they wanted to leave, refused to be drafted, were fed up with economic troubles that usually result from such disrutptions (at least for some time, I guess the Northern block would not have rewarded the South with having full trade with them). In Europe the class of farm workers was forbidden to seek employment in the new factories, they feared to lose cheap farm labor. or the facto serfs could not leave a region. I guess the ruling class of the South would have tried such strategies after 1860s. And you bet the North would have tried to help people leave (also whites) just to spite them. Slavery and domination of the black population (4 million, free but of course more slaves) could only function with help of the white underclass. The same greed that propped up chattel slavery also kept the ruling class from giving white trash a better deal - that would have erupted sooner or later, especially if you add some economic problems caused by Secession, trade conflicts and wars, etc. The White underclass were hanging on by the skin of their teeth during the "glory days".
6
@SovereignStatesman You can make the point that the South had the "right" to secede. Based on what ? Morality, abstract principles ? Political reality and real world power ? With the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution the founders SEIZED / DEMANDED the 1) right to self determination 2) only for the upper class and a few haves would call the shots & 3) integrated the right to have chattel slavery that they already had before. Is that based on any morale or philsophical "right" ? How does the right to secede form the British Empire backed up by moral and philosopical arguments rhyme with the right to enslave humans, the right to have and to EXPAND (that was a major issue in 1860) chattel slavery ? The demand not be ruled by an aristocracy and also not to be ruled by a foreign parliament, staffed by rich citizens and merchants of this foreign nation (with interests often diverging from the rich colonists - or any colonial settler). The right of a "state" = a poltical, geographical, legal unit - created under the former British rulers ... to choose to join, remain in or leave a union. States were existing power structure, they did not just manifest as organic units with a population banding together in a vote of self determination, living in a common region, and accepted rules of governance. States already existed (as units) as the Colonies sought independence. We can also base the right of the States of the Union on political reality and might. That and only that provides the explanation for the very pragmatic and greedy reasons they integrated chattel slavery into their new founded Republic. Most of the founders had slaves. The Union had formed after the 1 % of the colonies had a spat with the 1 % of the British Empire. The "states" are based on a structure the British implemented. The founders (most of them slave owners) added some high minded ideas, mostly for white males that had at least some property (based on some ideas of the Enlightenment). Only 40,000 white males had the vote in the new Republic, but of course the whole system they set up made sure the upper class stayed in control, and the input even of those that did have the vote would be small. Imitating the British parliament. They had a parliament and elections, but not democracy. Some of the provisions of the Constituions and provisions of the founders have aged well - and others not at all If the Empire had beaten them, they could have wiped their behinds with the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence.
4
@theonefisher The first declarations of secession were triggered by Lincoln winning the election. Even before he could enact anything. And I think the non-slave holding states had a majority in the House and Senate. (Either Texas or Virginia) mention that in their articles of secession. They are very explicit in their first wave of declarations. I guess after Lincoln right away signalled he would make concessions in order to preserve the union they slightly changed the language. He had robbed them off the pretext. He was not going to push for an end of slavery.
3
@theonefisher Secession was going to lead to war. The ruling class of the South knew, accepted and triggered that. - I can see a theroetical scenario where the American Union would break up like the Soviet Union (without a shot being fired). An interesting thought experiment - but all involved in American (and European !) politics then knew Secession = War. In the long run I think the institution of chattel slavery would have faded out. To de facto indentured servitude. With Jim Crow style "legal" system. In the 1920 it might not even have been that different for people of color than it was. Of course there would have been a surplus of white men (the Civil War took a terrible toll), so that would have created more instability for the feudal overlords. it is the question if imperialistic wars against other countries would have found so much support by their white cannon fodder. - They would either have revolted, demanded a share of the spoils from slavery and imperialistic endevours, or would have left for the North (and much sooner than they did in reality - because there would have been this population surplus, that was not wasted in war). The former slaves mades some progress, but only until Reconstruction had ended. They could not be sold, whipped and be forced to marry after that. But black people could not really leave in masses for the North, the white workers of the North feared their competition for wages. The resentment would not have been so strong against white Southeners. I do not assume the Confederacy would still have had chattel slavery in 1900 or 1920. On the other hand the South would have tried to go to war with Mexico, seize Cuba and implement chattel slavery there, too. So if the North wanted to hinder them, they would have needed to support those nations. Then there is the position of the British Empire, they claimed to not support, even ban slavery. Would they have undermined the export of crops of the South and gladly taken the cheaper goods (they got those crops from India and islands). Interesting scenario - maybe the Confederacy would have supported Germany and Japan in WW2. The North had the MODERN economic system, modern steel just took off in the late 1850s, they had iron ore and coal in the Great Lakes / Rustbelt states and did not need coal of the South for that. Industrial manufacturing gave them an edge over feudal agriculture, that just started. And allowed for an uppity working class that pushed their politicians to be against slavery (the working class sensed that was not good for the, or that black serfs / slaves could be pitted against them also in the context of industrial manufacturing). Many white poor families would have migrated to the North (a lot left in the 1930s to work in steel and other manufacturing), losing the North as market would have been bad for the South, too. White trash could either help their oligarchs win their future wars in Latin America risking life, limb and sanity - Or make a living for themselves in the North (also expansion of the settlers after the defeat of Native Americans, that was a chance to get a farm in the West). White trash was needed to keep the black population down in the South, the overlords needed them, not moving to the North (and in theory they were free to leave, or one family member went ahead and more followed). If the South also would have tried to dominate Cuba, Mexico, other Latin American countries etc. - Leverage worked against the feudal overlords. Their riches and export cash crops model would have financed an aggressive army for a few decades, but then it would have become too instable. Amercian imperialism (see Smedly Butler. War Is A Racke. Or the quote: I was a gangster for capitalism - he lists the countries that were a target of the UNITED States when he was a marine) needed the workforce and resources of all. The Monroe Doctrine delcared Latin America to be the backyard of the U.S. and told the Europeans to get lost - but that was the United States in 1823 that did some grandstanding. As opposed to the Northern Union and the Southern Confederacy (rich to be sure, but with an Economic model that was doomed) in 1860. Of course then the European monarchies would have shown interest in 1860 and started meddling. Prussia (largest regime in Germany) was on the rise, especially after they won the war of 1866 against the Austrian-Hungarian empire, but of course they were preparing for that confrontation in 1860 already by ramping up their military power. Later they showed interest in African colonies although they were late to the party. They could have changed plans and seen a chance in the Americas instead.
3
+ Remmy CO2 and Methane are the little hinges that swing big doors in Climate science. And no gas is as much tied to our economic activities like CO2. - Other gases like NOx might play a role and need to be addressed - but compared to CO2 - which is directly connected to the most important industry on the planet - NOx and other gases will be a problem that is easy to solve. In a political and economic environment where we can deal with Co2 in a constructive manner, the other factors will be considered as well. As for methane: reduce production of meat especially beef, switch to other forms of agriculture, prevent leaks of unburnt natural gas - more than 95 % i s methane. Methane has 28 times the impact of Co2 over 100 years. The advantage is that it is not as stable as CO2. Co2 is among the not so strong greenhouse gases - but it outlives the others. It is the tortoise among the hares. And is the one gas that was often emitted or reduced in the history of the planet - for instance when new mountain ranges emerged, the CO2 of the atmosphere bonded to the new rock, that was the cause of climate change in certain cases. So solar input, CO2, Methane, tectonic activity were the changers of climate in the past. Tectonic activity: How the landmasses and the ocean currents transporting heat were spread. The moving plates sometimes also triggered longtime volcanic activities, releasing masses of GG gases)
2
+Rick Kooi excellent post - I learned something.
2
+stevepxs - when you cite the "weather which you experienced for 50 years" THEN you have not understood CONCEPTS like AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature, having a LARGE SAMPLE. Or "regional weather - as REMEMBERED !" versus CLIMATE ! DATA ! You are blissfully unaware that "lived experience" cannot scientifically GRASP the issue you feel qualified to talk about. Not even as a layperson one could consider you well informed, discerning, nuanced and considering the big picture. Some interest in psychology would inform you about how bias shapes memories, WHAT goes into the longterm memory and how those memories may change over time. All of that comes from instinctive processing of information of a brain that evolved to improve the chances of survival. The memory of lived human experiences can change over time (that is why we write things down, certainly the scientiests do that). We remember what is important to US or stands out - not the daily slightly higher temperatures that as single events do not stand out at all but form a pattern if they are tackled with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Scientists are subject to that bias and incosistence and limitations like every human. That is WHY they collect large samples of data and use statistics. And submit to PEER REVIEW. They must CONVINCE other experts of their findings and arguments. The human brain is not made to process "average" - temperature, or whatever. And of course small differences do not register with us (although THEY are very relevant for the big picture) - the big events stand out, and they are remembered and form our opinions. The hunterer gatherers in Africa or later in Europe during the Ice age did not need to know the average temperature, not even the local one. What they needed to know: If the wandering herds were coming - or not. Or the weather of the next few days. Was it safe to go on the last hunt before the winter ? Was a blizzard coming ? You may remember snowfall and blizzards and "remember" that as a cold winter - and a scientist could tell you that the very same winter ON AVERAGE was warmer. Even though that seems counterintuitive.
2
@SovereignStatesman No, the EU is not nearly as integrated as the United States were. To be the sure, the States had a lot of independence, but they had fought in wars together, under one president, had a federal budget. The EU is a weird hybrid, the EU parliament is more of a facade, .... U.S. Congress can inititiate laws, and that was also the case in 1860. The EU is not a "union" like the U.S. The Soviet Union also had Republics. Nontheless it was one country and acted as such.
2
Prager taking a PIGGY RIDE on the "brand" of FDR ;) - the Democratic, populist president. Fireside chat was the term FDR coined when he conveyed his ideas over radio to the citizens. FDR used radio to circumvent the potentially biased reporting by the press that was mostly controlled by his Republican opponents. Most of the time the fireside chats were about his social, welfare, employment and government programs that were unheard of at that time. (There are transcripts on the web - if interested). He had started those radio adressess as Governor of New York, he put the concept to good use when he addressed the nation at the end of the bank holidy after the passing of the Bank Emergency Act, that prevented a bank run (federal deposit insurance restored trust in the system). Imagine coming into office and the first you have to deal with is a major banking crisis. Allegedly 60 million people (out of 125 million inhabitants) heard his speech on Sunday evening - banks reopened the next Monday. Well at least you aim high.
2
Argument 1) everbody go vegan - then come back
2
+ Metthew What cost will it have on the poor and the economy if we CONTINUE to procrastinate with CO2 reduction ? Especially the poor will be hit, but the disruption and wars will be such that no one will escape.
1
your cavalier (uninformed) attitude is mind boggling. When the dinos walked the earth much less "LAND" was available. No icecaps = much higher sealevel. Now the land that was available might have been better suited for life (no deserts etc., moderate temps near the poles). BUT when the oceans take back the coastal areas over ONLY !!! 100 or 200 years - think wars over territory. If such a change were to come over time we could adapt. currently we have most of our large cities and densely populated areas NEARBY the coasts. Can you imagine the costs !! 1,000 years is considered a QUICK climate change. (that was after the last ice age. Of course species went extinct. Now the top predator (homo sapies, 8 billions and counting) needs predictable !! conditions for food production and settlements. QUICK CLIMATE CHANGE = CATASTROPHIC INSTABILITY agriculture and settlements were set up to suit conditions that do not apply anymore (draughts, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, crops damaged by heat waves, too much or too little rain, unusual frosts in the spring). With 8 billions and counting we better have STABLE and PREDICTABLE conditions. The quickest climate change that ever happened - and this time caused by foolish homo sapiens delivers the opposite. When the meteroit hit the earth 65 million years ago - the weather changed catastrophically for some years. In fact the change was much more dramatic - but that did not last - climate wise - of course the few extreme years triggered a mass extinction event (there are 5 or 6 - and people like you are all for creating !! the next one). Most of the mass extinction events were caused by climate change (only that it
1
The "Ice Age" scare were a few "selling" stories in newspapers and reported by JOURNALISTS. As opposed to scientists working in relevant fields who publish in peer reviewed magazines. Some scientists back in the 1970s found that an interesting issue (are we headed for another glaziation, resp. when could it be expected to happen ?) maybe they got funding by the special interests - that is fine as long as it does not undermine the work. They did their research and the papers, found out: Nope, it's not happening anytime soon. They published that (it was not a large body of work) - and moved on. As opposed to overwhelming consensus, the date and the daming events backing that up. And the Pentagon preparing for those scenarios. Just to clarify: I see often the claim made: Yes in the 1970s they said it would be the Ice Age soon and now it is Global Warming .... No the overwhelming majority of scientist NEVER assumed that we are headed for a soon glaziation.
1
+1973Washu No - humans will do what they always do when they come under economic stress - they look for strongmen and scapegoats, start trade wars and then switch to real wars. - The Pentagon btw PREPARES for the consequences of climate change. Chna currently imports more than 50 % of its food. What do you think is going to happen if China is hit by massive draughts ? Trump asked the authorities for permission to build a wall to protect his property in Scotland from rising sea levels. If the economy is bad (lost harvests, hurricances, wildfires, draughts, prolonged weather patterns that do not change - either heatwaves or rain, floodings, hurricanes, the costs to protect property from rising sea level - there is an economic cost to that. Our current system could not even work for the majority when we squandered the recourses. Now it is getting more erratic and more costly. So prepare for the disgruntled masses (they already ARE). And then consider what will happen when survival or the value of porperty is challenged (WATER, AGRICULTURE, resettling or dealing with constant flooding). Under economic stress thy drift to the populist left and right. More often to the far right, and a considerable part of the population starts to look for a strongman. Germany 1930s - and it was not only Germany, many European countries got rightwing dictatorships in that time. Japan ! They had built industrial manufacturing, they were destined to serve the big Chinese market (in cooperation with the elites of the American and British empire of course). Then the civil war in China started - and the markets closed down globally after 1929, all countries did protectionism. So the Japanese also did what humans always do: they doubled down on the militarism and and nationalism, invaded China, Korea, ... they started wars in the whole region and then with the U.S. Interestingly there COULD have been another solution. The U.S., European and Japanese population was not that different 30 years later. Skills, infrastructure (worse after the war), work ethics, level of entrepreneurship. (And China STILL was not open as a market for Japan). But the economic recipe had changed - which enabled the recovery in the U.S. under the New Deal and the Economic Miracle after WW2. Creating win/win cooperations and using Keynsian economics to EXPAND the economy and grow the wealth of regular citizens. If we do a 180 on our economy - THEN we may be able to soften the blow. But we will have to deal with costs , casualties, hardships that could have been prevented had there been a coordinated, wise, long term oriented and decisive effort made 20 - 30 years ago (then of course with less sacrifices and many damages avoided alltogether). 1 penny in prevention saves 1 dollar in damages. Unfortunately that kind of bold effort is only supported by the leadership when it comes to arms races and going to war. Our economc system is driven by the pursuit of the highest profit or the lowest price. In personal relationships we call the "accepted" principle GREED. The driving force is anonymous, fragmented, operates and the lowest level of the system (everyone form themselves only) and short term. OF COURSE such an economic system cannot deal with big challenges, help to avoid damages that are certain but lie in the future, or can act on behalf of the common good.
1
The same think tank that helped the tobacco industry (and went out of work) then switched over to help Big Oil. Big Oil btw now confirms that Global Warming is happening and that it is manmade.
1
Generals and officers who bravely fought to preserve the Right of States to have chattel slavery - the leaders of a catastrophically lost civil war - should we now keep the monuments they erected for them decades after the war (30 - 50 years often), the last wave was in the 1960s (yep 1960s). Some even in 1970. So more than ONE CENTURY after the end of the lost Civil war. This would be like the Germans starting now to erect monuments for some WW2 generals. "But it is not to glorify something untoward." (wink, wink). "It was not all bad under Hitler. And some were competent or even brave military leaders."
1
Edmund Pettus bridge (Selma !) was named in the 1930s or 1940s. Check out the (Klan) history of that man, that died while holding office (Senator I think). - If you drive to Nashville TN, a statue erected in 1970 will greet you - of a man that was a big whig in the KKK, likely also fought (bravely) in the Civil War. He made a fortune with slave trade in Memphis. That statue was erected in 1970, which is 2 years after Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis.
1
Freedom !! and equal treatment under the law. (The Supreme court would blow the idea out of the water - what with transfers of citizens, non-citizens and corporations to other countries ? To make matters even more inconsistent: Mexico currently has a "free trade deal" with the U.S. Not that I am a fan of those kind of deals - but how does Conservatism or being Christian align with overturning the rules at will (in that case the rules for companies !, citizens !! and documented and undocumented immigrants to send money to a country with which the U.S. has a lot of trade.) But heaven forbid, there is a small charge on speculation (all speculation I would not discriminate or favor one kind of transaction / bet over the other). Those transfers might be strictly business related btw - and the sender of the money must not have any Mexican background or relatives there. Last but not least retired U.S. citizens go to Mexico to live there. Tax their transfers too ??
1