New Pennies
Bruce Remick
out with the latest Lincoln & Chronicles set. Not one of these companies is
yet offering any for sale. Where they usually seem to list a supply of
every new Mint issue in their ads as soon as the issue becomes available,
this time it looks like collectors and investors will be controlling the
market for this limited issue set for the near future.
Thanks(?) to the per-household ordering limits, most dealers wanting to
build up a stock of the L & C sets likely will have to make lots of small
purchases at relatively high prices. I wonder if many dealers were
scrambling to buy them on eBay at $150-$175, only to find that the going
eBay price had declined to $130 or so a couple weeks later. Will they be
holding onto the sets in hope the price will turn back up? I wonder the
same thing about those 2006 3-coin American Eagle Anniversary sets that
dropped from an initial $500 panic range to the $200 range on the secondary
market. Still not too bad for an original $100 investment.
Nothing on the local DC area TV news (that I saw) on today's ceremony
and distribution here of the last of the Lincoln commemorative reverse
cents. I'll check the Wash Post in the morning. After all, although
Lincoln apparenty was a Republican, he did have a liberal bent. If there is
any mention in print, I'd bet it will take most readers by surprise to learn
that this is the last of four changes to the back side of their penny that
will have occurred this year.
oly
While Lincoln did retain some of the populism and "folksiness" of the
frontier that he grew up in, Lincoln represented the triumph of
Hamilton's war-filled business and corporate vision OVER Jefferson's
vision of a peaceable state of yeoman farmers/planters.
For chri-sakes, Lincoln was nothing but a corporate lawyer (for the
railroads) from the early 1850s until he won the Presidency. His nut-
bucket wife hated Springfield and drove and drove him until he got a
better job someplace else.
oly
Bruce Remick
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7fa80c2b-9f5a-41a4...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
oly
_____________________
Yikes!
Along those lines, I've been looking for a comprehensive online site that
would give the occupations of each of our current senators and congressmen
before they were elected to office, and how long they worked at it. Just
curious as to the real life background and experience of our various reps
who make the laws and craft things like health care reform, etc. So far,
my Googling hasn't found any one site that has gathered this type of info.
Mr. Jaggers
The vast majority of them are unqualified to be shooting off their mouths
the way they do. Welcome to America.
James the Native
mazorj
...
While Lincoln did retain some of the populism and "folksiness" of the
frontier that he grew up in, Lincoln represented the triumph of
Hamilton's war-filled business and corporate vision OVER Jefferson's
vision of a peaceable state of yeoman farmers/planters.
oly
======================
Which in hindsight was inevitable. Especially, although not solely, because
slavery was on its way out as one of the economic pillars of that idyllic
agrarian view. The desire to become economically and well as politically
independent of Great Britain also fostered the growth of industry and
finance over farming. And then there's the human nature problem of how are
you going to keep them on the farm after they've seen gay Paree or Boston or
New York or Philadelphia or Baltimore or Richmond, etc. Wage jobs,
especially for skilled labor, will always be more attractive than farm work
for many, just as the opportunity to make a fortune in the big city is more
attractive than farming to entrepreneurial types. So Jefferson's agrarian
dream was doomed from the start, although many of the political ideals that
came from his world view are as valid and useful now as they were then.
Mr. Jaggers
Really? Name three.
James, in Anticipation
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hdjq4...@enews6.newsguy.com...
I sort of figured that. I just wondered if all the naked details had been
assembled in one place. Might be too frustrating to read through.
Mr. Jaggers
Well, for example, the only ones who have credibility when it comes to
speaking on the matter of gay rights are the ones who have made serious
inquiry into the findings of science in the field of human sexuality. How
many of those do you figure there might be? The only ones who have cred
when it comes to speaking on the matter of evolution are the ones who have
made serious inquiry into the findings of science in the fields of biology
and anthropology, with a good admixture of the study of comparative
cultures. How many of those do you figure there might be? I could go on
and include abortion, prayer in the schools, and health care reform, but I'm
sure you can guess where I'm going with this.
James the Secular
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
It's easy to find quotes of his thoughts and principles that are still
relevant today - a Virginia .edu site has a nice assemblage of them. Hell,
he wrote part or all of some of the basic documents that laid out the
foundations of our democracy. So in that sense your question is
disingenuous.
However, since I made that statement in the context of his idealist agrarian
world view, I suppose I should try to identify some that sprang not just
from more universal values, but also from differences with the Hamiltonian
gestalt. That's quite a bit trickier, especially since the influences of
his world view often are buried in his expressions of more universal values
and it is a matter of nuance and emphasis rather than a simple one-to-one
correspondence or lack thereof. However, I'll take a quick stab at it:
"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known
but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws,
and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on
equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more
favored one whenever their rights seem to jar." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers
to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:8
Here I see a break with the elitist strains of Hamilton's views, where all
citizens are equal but some at the top are more equal than others. Here
Jefferson says that if "more equal" status goes to anyone, it should be to
common laborers (which by implication includes farmers) and not to the
privileged few.
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and
not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of
British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
Again, a fairly clear difference with Hamilton's proposals for actual or
quasi-royal elements at the top of government, where by law ("magistrate")
common citizens would not have the same status and powers as those at the
top. The common laborer or farmer should have equal status and power with
those who pull the reigns of finance, industry, and government.
I could provide the third example and many, many more, but you get my point.
I know that you object to knee-jerk total adoration of TJ - and I would
agree. But we cannot make an either/or, totally good or totally bad
categorical assessment of his views, including his agrarian Utopia. As I
said, that was doomed from the start. But then, so are pure laissez-faire
Randian capitalism and Marxist socialism. That doesn't mean that any of
those three are totally devoid of accurate, useful principles and
observations about economics and human nature and behavior. There are
important principles to extract from all three.
Jefferson was an extraordinarily gifted, intelligent, thoughtful person.
Which means he is far too complex to pigeon-hole on any dimension, and the
same goes for his personal and political and economic views.
So the answer to your question mostly can be found only by contrasting
certain of his views (and the nuances thereof) with Hamilton's. Which is
what I've attempted to do here in a general fashion. It's far easier to
pick out aspects of his agrarian views that were wrong, such as the
presumable tie between agrarianism and his acceptance of slavery as an
economic pillar despite his fanatic devotion to democracy and equal
treatment.
BTW, in perusing his thoughts - an exercise I highly recommend to inform and
energize an appreciation of our political roots - I ran across the following
assessment of the state of democracy across the pond:
"In these countries [of Europe],... ignorance, superstition, poverty, and
oppression of body and mind, in every form, are so firmly settled on the
mass of the people, that their redemption from them can never be hoped. If
the Almighty had begotten a thousand sons, instead of one, they would not
have sufficed for this task. If all the sovereigns of Europe were to set
themselves to work, to emancipate the minds of their subjects from their
present ignorance and prejudices, and that, as zealously as they now
endeavor the contrary, a thousand years would not place them on that high
ground, on which our common people are now setting out." --Thomas Jefferson
to George Wythe, 1786. ME 5:396
He spoke of 18th Century Europe. Transferring the relevance of this
observation to current world events is left as an exercise for the reader.
(His praise for our forefathers' relative enlightenment notwithstanding,
credits will be deducted for not also linking the relevance of the factors
he cites as applicable to the current state of U.S. political and moral and
scientific sophistication, or lack thereof.)
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Heh, see the last Jefferson quote in my immediately previous post.
- mazorj
"History is the rear-view mirror of current events."
Mr. Jaggers
As long as ideas attributed to TJ were actually expressed by TJ, I have no
problem. But recently we have seen in these pages various things attributed
to him for which there is no citation, and in that sense my question is
anything but disingenuous.
I did not pose the challenge out of malice, but out of confidence that you
would be able to capably elaborate, and you have not disappointed me. We
need to be reminded of the ideas that were on the wind at the time of our
founding. I'm still waiting to see the modern equivalent of TJ on the
Nightly News, but am not holding my breath. The ignorance that is regularly
showcased there no doubt has the Great One turning in his grave.
James, du Si�cle des Lumi�res
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Add to those the members who have no military experience, no experience
developing a health care "system", no experience in a myriad of other issues
that they will be drafting legislation on and voting on. I guess it's just
the way our government works. I just wish a few congressmen would
acknowledge their lack of substantive credentials once in a while.
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Gable, Bogart, etc. in the entertainment field.
Mr. Jaggers
I suppose that my use of the word "equivalent" is ill-advised, as there is
really no such thing, ever. Perhaps "peer" or even "modern counterpart"
would be better?
James the Thespian
Mr. Jaggers
Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting all legislators to be masters of all
those issues all the time, but I'd like to see at least some expertise on
the part of each of them in one or more specialties, which I fail to see on
the part of very many of them at all. And I certainly have to agree with
your closing statement. I'm pretty sick of all the strutting and preening.
It was probably not any different 150 years ago, though. Let's see, that
would have been...late 1859.
James the Uncivil Warrior
'with assistance from Lieutenant Duck, Captain Dodge, and Major Hyde'
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I understood the meaning of your statement perfectly. I suppose I was just
commenting to hear/see myself commenting.
sgt23
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
You might try Wikipedia for what its worth. It usually gives a little
information about anyone who is anyone and hand been heard of.