Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
JakeHolman

SCIENCE, NATURE, HISTORY & CULTURE

Recommended Posts

https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/what-is-good-for-an-octopus-c99c61dc6f93

What Is Good for an Octopus?

 
Walter Veit
Walter Veit
Follow
Jun 15 · 4 min read
 
 
0*TdwUeglPaz1d28vt?q=20
0*TdwUeglPaz1d28vt

The mind of an octopus may be highly different from our own, but it is only by trying to see the world from their point of view that we will be able to find out what is good for them and hence ensure their welfare.

 

Heather Browning, an Australian zookeeper at the National Zoo & Aquarium Canberra and PhD candidate at the Australian National University, working on the methodological and conceptual problems arising in the measurement of subjective animal welfare has recently published a brief article with the titular question: “ What is good for an Octopus?

There is now a wealth of research on Octopus behaviour that suggests that cephalopods (octopuses, squid, and cuttlefish) are sentient creatures with complex mental lives. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness states: “the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” What does the mental life of an Octopus look like? Browning argues that:

“[t]his is of primary interest when considering the welfare of octopuses. If octopuses are sentient, then they have a welfare that can be harmed or benefitted.” — Heather Browning

0*dWTyrocD0lk3Kvu1?q=20
0*dWTyrocD0lk3Kvu1

As octopus farming is currently only growing we should start to immediately implement policies that ensure the wellbeing and quality of life of the affected cephalopods involved in farming.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since most people have a camera built into their Smartphones, everyday is National Camera Day.

74d8ba70410160062842984f554a1389.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching "World War II: Witness To War - Bombing the Reich",  learned something new about racial segregation during the war.  After deploying both white and black soldiers in England with the racial policy, the British HATED it and did not allow it on their soil whether if the Americans liked it or not.

file-20180620-137750-1pdhrby.jpg?ixlib=r

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

homepage logo

The Battle of Gettysburg: Prelude to the fight

Editor’s note: This story serves as the introduction to our coverage of important moments in both the American struggle for independence and the Civil War as significant dates overlap.

 

This week, 157 years ago, the Battle of Gettysburg was fought. The Battle of Gettysburg was not only the largest battle of the American Civil War, but was also the largest battle on American soil.

The Grand Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia clashed for the three bloodiest days in U.S. history from July 1-3, 1863. The Battle of Gettysburg is largely regarded as the turning point of the American Civil War.

Up to July 1, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia had seen significant success in the Eastern theatre of the war, while the Western theatre was moving at a sluggish pace until Union General Ulysses S. Grant was able to take Vicksburg, which would be the beginning of the end for the Confederacy in the West.

Confederate commanding General Robert E. Lee had won a decisive battle at Chancellorsville, Virginia. Following the victory at Chancellorsville, Lee took his army north, out of Virginia and into Pennsylvania.

Lee’s goal was to take economic pressure off of Virginia and fight an offensive campaign in North. Lee hoped bringing his army north and closer to major Union cities like Boston, Washington, would apply pressure to ongoing peace talks to bring the war to an end.

Lee’s invading army was comprised of some 71,000 troops, which he hoped would be enough to crush the Army of the Potomac, which was in relatively low spirits after Chancellorsville.

Lee was marching into Pennsylvania rather blind, however. The majority of his cavalry, under General Jeb Stuart, was far past his own lines, and did not send adequate reports to Lee on the size of the Union Army.

The Army of the Potomac had just days ago transferred command to General George Meade. Lee expected Meade to be terribly cautious, being new to such a large command, an army that stood at some 93,000 strong.

In the three days to follow, Lee hoped his significantly smaller force would be able to roll over the Army of Meade, apply pressure to Washington, and in that same stroke, prove to European powers that the Confederate States of America were legitimate, and would stand.

A decisive victory at Gettysburg would be what it would take for Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy and as the South hoped, send in much needed military and financial support.

Should Meade and the Army of the Potomac win, it would be a devastating loss to not only Lee’s numbers, but morale, and hopes of European intervention.

July 1 through July 3, by Gettysburg and in conjunction with the siege of Vicksburg, would tell whether the Confederacy would stand or fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On "Strange Evidence" the "ghost" could not be explained by experts.  This video showed the same thing from the   TV series. Hoaxes were ruled out after close investigation how such could had been done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Is How Horrible the Battle of Gettysburg Was (And Why the Aftermath Was Even Worse)

What happenned when it was over...

July 3, 2017 
 

November 8 witnessed one of the most stunning upsets in U.S. political history when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. But it might not have been the most stunning upset. 150 years earlier, also on November 8, a U.S. presidential election produced a shocking winner in what may be the most consequential election ever held in America.

In the summer of 1864, the Civil War had been raging for three years. Already, well over eight hundred thousand Americans had been killed or wounded. Citizens in both the North and South were virulently sick of war and wanted the conflict ended. Events on the battlefield, just before the election that fall, would seal the South’s defeat, catapult Abraham Lincoln to victory and ultimately provide momentum for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, permanently freeing all slaves in America.

Though not recognized at that time, it was a key battle the summer before that actually dealt what would prove to be the fatal blow to the South. The fight took place in a farming village in southern Pennsylvania that few in America had ever heard of: Gettysburg.

Most people in America today, regardless of party affiliation, revere Abraham Lincoln and believe that he was equally and broadly popular in his time. Many would be shocked to learn that heading into the election of 1864, Lincoln was expected to lose. Less than three months before the election, the cofounder of the Republican Party and editor of the powerful New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, wrote to senior Republican leaders, “Mr. Lincoln is already beaten. He cannot be elected. And we must have another ticket to save us from utter overthrow.”

By all accounts, as late as August 1864, most experts expected former Union general George B. McClellan to handily defeat Lincoln. Yet barely two months before the election, Gen. William T. Sherman finally overpowered Confederate defenses and captured the city of Atlanta, sending a wave of euphoria throughout the Union. After the leaders of his own party had considered replacing him on the Republican ticket, Lincoln won the most lopsided victory in history when he defeated McClellan in the Electoral College, 212 to 21. Sherman’s victory at Atlanta—and hence Lincoln’s victory in 1864—was made possible by the Union victory at Gettysburg in July 1863.

 

Confederate commander Gen. Robert E. Lee launched an offensive into Union territory in the summer of 1863, in an attempt to relieve pressure on the South and possibly turn the support of Northerners against the war, leading potentially to a negotiated settlement. The Union troops, led at the time by Gen. George Meade, met the rebels near the outskirts of Gettysburg on July 1. On the first day of battle, Lee’s troops scored decisive victories. On the second day, again Union forces suffered setbacks, leading some to fear Meade’s troops might have to surrender the field and withdraw. The fate of the entire battle came down to the defense of one small hill on the Union’s far left flank, at an otherwise unremarkable hill known as the Little Round Top.

The defensive position was secured by the Twentieth Maine regiment, led by Col. Joshua Chamberlain, who had been a professor of modern languages at Bowdoin College before the war. If Lee’s troops could dislodge the Twentieth Maine from the hill, the rest of the Yankee line would be vulnerable, potentially leading to complete Confederate victory. Chamberlain was told to hold the hill at all costs; even if he lost every man, retreat was not permitted.

The Confederates likewise recognized the value of the hill and ordered five regiments from Alabama and Texas to take the hill. Vastly outnumbered, the Twentieth Maine stretched themselves to barely one deep. Southern troops recognized how thin the line was on the far end of the defenses, and ordered a flanking assault. Chamberlain moved some of his men as far left as he could and met the charge. The first rebel attempt was repelled. A second and third charge was likewise repulsed, but the last attack by the Texans and Alabamians had depleted most of the remaining ammunition among the federal troops.

Seeing that the Confederates were assembling for another charge up the hill, Chamberlain realized he didn’t have enough ammunition to survive one more assault. Remembering his orders to hold at all costs, the Colonel ordered his men to fix bayonets. When the enemy began its final attack, Chamberlain ordered his men to leave their protective positions at the top of the hill and to run headlong into the attacking Southerners.

The Twentieth Maine didn’t stand a chance. They were exhausted, most—including Colonel Chamberlain—were wounded, and many of the troops were out of ammunition. Yet despite these odds, miraculously, the Yankee troops dashed downhill, right into the teeth of the Southern attack, screaming and wildly flashing the steel of their bayonets, and took the Southerners by surprise. The audacity of the downhill assault shocked the attackers. Once the Union troops broke through the Southern line, a panic set in and the rebel troops abandoned the field. The Union flank held, and eventually the entire Confederate attack failed.

Many Americans today are familiar with the battle of Gettysburg. Most read about it in history books growing up. Some have even attended reenactments in the city itself. But it is very difficult to appreciate the savagery, the barbarity of the fight, or the sheer volume of carnage that afflicted both sides. While the battle itself is known by most Americans, few are aware of the aftermath of the fight. A description of what happened on the field of battle after the two armies moved on to continue the fight elsewhere may be most indicative of the horrific experience there.

The Civil War inflicted the most casualties on Americans of any war we’ve ever fought. The North and South suffered the greatest number of casualties in that war at the battle of Gettysburg. Over fifty-one thousand people—both soldiers and civilians—were killed or wounded that day. The cleanup of the aftermath was almost as horrific as the battle itself.

Most experts estimate there were well over three thousand total bodies left on the ground when both the Union and Confederate armies continued to the next fight. Neither side had the manpower to bury more than a few score of their men. You can imagine what would happen to the remains of that many human beings in the middle of the hot and desultory summer when temperatures were near one hundred.

Historian Gregory Coco, author of A Strange and Blighted Land: Gettysburg, The Aftermath of a Battle, exhaustively research what happened on the Gettysburg battlefield in the years following the fight. His descriptions are sometimes hard to read. At a speech given at Gettysburg at the book’s launch, he explained that there were thousands of dead soldiers, but also three thousand dead horses and two thousand other animals. “There was every type of corrupting, decomposing corpse you could imagine,” he said. The stench was horrifying for those tasked with cleaning up the land.

Burying that many people was a mammoth chore, leaving little room for honor or formalities. “There might have been as many as 25 to 30 burial trenches,” Coco explained, “and in these trenches were anywhere from 25 to 100 men. The way they would bury them would be to put the men in the trenches and then cover them with maybe four inches of soil.” This seemingly efficient method had unintended consequences.

After the quick burials in the shallow graves, heavy rains would expose the bodies again and you could see where “hands stuck out, feet stuck out, and skulls stuck out. The birds had finally come back after a few weeks and they began to peck at the bodies,” Coco continued. “But worse than that, there were wild hogs and dogs loose everywhere. They began to chew on the exposed body parts and actually pull them out of the ground. I don’t think there can be anything worse in a human’s mind than to see a human being—enemy or not—being eaten by a wild dog or hog.”

A Union surgeon at one battle site recorded that “stretched along, in one straight line, ready for interment, at least a thousand blackened bloated corpses with blood and gas protruding from every orifice, and maggots holding high carnival over their heads.” It is difficult to comprehend or reconcile on one’s mind that such staggering human suffering and destruction at the Battle of Gettysburg actually resulted in positive outcomes for the country.

Had Lee not been so operationally weakened by his defeat at Gettysburg, he would likely have been able to continue offensive operations and conceivably have brought Washington, DC, itself under assault; the entire course of the war would have taken radically different trajectory. However the war might have ultimately turned out, had Lee continued the offensive in the North beyond Gettysburg, it is likely that Atlanta would not have fallen by the summer of 1864 and Lincoln been defeated by McClellan. Without the moral force of Lincoln at the helm, the Thirteenth Amendment would most certainly not have been passed.

The tide of slavery was already waning in the world at the time of the Civil War, and it is a virtual certainty that the wretched institution would have ended at some point in American history, even without Lincoln. But at what cost? How many more years or decades would have passed before freedom was won for black Americans? Those answers are impossible to answer, but one thing is certain. As much difficulty as the country has with race relations today, they are nothing in comparison to what we would still be facing had freedom not come until sometime in the twentieth century.

 

Gettysburg was a major battle that inflicted grievous wounds on both the North and the South. Though even at the time the Union was recognized at having come out on top, their losses led to discouragement and discontent at the ambiguity of the outcome throughout the North. Yet the slight margin of victory proved to be just enough to allow Sherman’s troops to defeat the Confederacy in Atlanta the next year. One of the enduring lessons of Gettysburg is that one never knows how consequential events may prove to be in the future, even when the results are mixed and messy.

Daniel L. Davis is a retired U.S. Army colonel who served multiple tours in Afghanistan. He is a senior fellow with Defense Priorities. Follow him on Twitter @DanielLDavis1.

Image result for THE NATIONAL INTEREST

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this listed on my Directv guide, thought it was about a bad cop.

220px-Don't_Breathe_(2016_film).png

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LewRockwell.comanti-stateanti-warpro-market

Why The Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery

By Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.,

July 15, 2020

From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and to defend his home; the two great heroes of the war were Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee; and the South admitted that slavery was wrong but never conceded that it was cruel.

Around 1960, the Democratic Party—led by Lyndon B. Johnson—advanced the modern incarnation of identity politics. It worked very well for them. In the election of 1956, 75% of African-Americans voted Republican. By 1964, more than 90% of them voted Democrat, and they have been doing so until 2020. As part of their effort to control and manipulate the black vote, the Leftists and their myrmidons advanced the myth that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasn’t. It was, in my opinion, about money, more than anything else. Now, at this point, I know some of my liberal friends will bristle up and say: “It was too all about slavery!” Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but let me ask you this: What was slavery about?

ANSWER: It was about money.

The “it was all about slavery” argument is an oversimplified and infantile claim that has duped many people. Those who subscribe to this flawed theory ignore one undeniable fact: history is messy. It is almost never as simple as the modern Left would have you believe. Oh, sure, slavery was an issue, but it was certainly not the only issue and not even the dominant one. Listed below are eleven others:

1. The Question of What Kind of Government Would We Have? Would we follow the Alexander Hamilton’s big government/commercial state model, featuring a strong, centralized government, a chief executive with almost royal powers, a Senate elected for life, high tariffs to encourage manufacturing at the expense of agriculture, a strong National Bank to control the currency, and high public land prices to generate income for Washington, D.C., to finance internal improvements (especially canals and roads in the North), selling public lands at high prices would also have the advantage of keeping the new waves of immigrants from Europe in the cities. Because they could not afford to buy land and therefore could not farm, they would have to remain in the cities, providing a ready pool of cheap labor for big business.

The alternative was the small government, “governs best which governs least” philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. This viewpoint was adopted by his intellectual heirs, John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, among others. The Hamiltonian model was adopted by Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, who embraced Clay’s “America System” ideas as his political North Star.

One never hears about this nowadays because it is largely a dead issue. It was settled at Appomattox. Big government won. And it is still winning. This is why one can say that, when it comes to the Civil War, in a sense, both sides lost.

2. Northern corporate greed. Northern corporations liked high tariffs (taxes) on goods the South imported, because it reduced competition with European manufacturers and allowed them to charge higher prices for often substandard goods. The tax revenue went to Washington, which used it to subsidize Northern industries (both directly and indirectly) at the expense of Southern agriculture. Cotton was especially lucrative. In 1859, the value of exported cotton totaled $161,000,000. The value of all Northern exports combined was just over $70,000,000. By 1860, the Federal budget was $80,000,000. Seventy million of that was paid by the South. One section, which amounted to 29% of the population, was paying more than 82% of the taxes. Of that, four out of five dollars was being used for internal improvements in the North. This was not good enough for Abraham Lincoln. He backed an increase in the tariff from 24% to 47% (and 51% on items containing iron). He got his way. This tariff rate was in effect until 1913.

3. Northern hypocrisy. The North also had slaves. It is an actual fact that Massachusetts had slavery 78 years longer than Mississippi. They freed their slaves by a process called manumission, which was designed so that the Northern master didn’t lose any money. Wall Street continued to finance Southern plantations, and thus slavery, until the Civil War. The Northern bankers wanted slaves as collateral and preferred them to land. Very often, “Massa” used the money he borrowed from Northern banks to purchase more slaves. The Northern bankers thus financed slavery.

Also, it did not escape the attention of the Southern editors that the slave fleets did not headquarter in Southern ports. They operated out of Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, joined later by New York City. The Lincoln regime did nothing to restrict these Northern shipping interests. Nor did this stop with the war. It continued until 1885, 20 years after Lee surrendered, when Brazil became the last nation in the New World to outlaw the international slave trade. Southern editorial writers hammered home all these points in the 1840s and 1850s, when charges of Northern hypocrisy were quite common in Southern newspapers.

4. Abolitionist terrorism. The greatest fear most Southerners had before 1861 was the slave revolt along the lines of that experienced by Haiti in 1791. Many abolitionists called for them, and some of them financially supported John Brown’s terrorist attack on Harpers Ferry in 1859. Frederick Douglass and W. E. B. DuBois called the shots fired here and the first shots of the Civil War. They were probably right.

5. Republican willingness to protect terrorists. The John Brown terrorists who escaped to the North were incarcerated. The states with Republican governors refused to extradite them and let them go. The South looked upon this as a preview of what they could expect from a Republic president. When John Brown seized Harpers Ferry, Democratic President Buchanan sent in the Marines. The Southern leaders asked if they could expect the same from a Republican president? The answer was no.

6. The Federal budget grossly favored the North (see Number 2 above).

7. Cultural differences. These are too complex to innumerate here, but they still exist. Because of television, they are less pronounced than they were in 1860, but they are still there.

8. Political power. Because of immigration, the demographics caused a power shift in favor of the North. By 1860, the South felt (with considerable justification) that it was doomed to become an economic colony of the North if it remained in the Union, so it did not.

9. Constitutional Issues. After large sections of New England threatened to secede five times between 1803 and 1860, Lincoln and his cronies suddenly decided that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (somehow) did not apply to the South in 1861, and that the powers not delegated to the states or the people somehow did not count when it came to secession. But after the war, the Federal government refused to bring Jefferson Davis (or any other Southern leader) to trial, even though he demanded it, because as Senator Sumner (a radical Republican) wrote to Chief Justice Chase: “because by the Constitution, secession is not treason.”

10. Nineteenth-Century Fake News. In 1832, a motion to abolish slavery failed in the Virginia legislature by a vote of 58 to 65. Four years later, the legislature made it a crime even to advocate abolition. The difference? Northern abolitionist propaganda, which was often hateful, salacious, and untruth. It made the slavery issue sectional. In the 1830s, anti-slavery societies in the South outnumbered those in the North 106 to 24. By 1850, there were no anti-slavery societies in the South—zip, zero, nada.

11.Economic Issues After Secession. The Confederacy set its tariff rates at 10%. (If it was good enough for God, it was good enough for them.) There was no way Lincoln’s 47% tariff could compete with that for foreign trade. Lincoln legitimately feared the Northern economy would crash into a recession, if not a depression, and the Federal Government would lose 82% of its tax base, so Washington would be in desperate straits. Because Northern public opinion did not support a war (many Northerners said “Good riddance!” to the South), Lincoln had to walk a political tightrope. He had to instigate a war and make it appear that the South started it by maneuvering Jefferson Davis into firing the first shot. The slick corporate lawyer was up to this as well, but that is a story for another time.

When one has written an entire book about a subject like the causes of the Civil War, it is difficult to condense it into 1,500 words or so. Suffice it to say that the onset of the Civil War was much more complex than the average American today thinks it was. For those astonished by the facts I have mentioned above, I hope you are inspired to do further reading on the subject. To paraphrase Harry Truman: the only thing new is the history you don’t know.

 

Dr. Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., is the author of It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Regnery History: 2020) and is a retired professor with 40 books to his credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

top-causes-of-the-civil-war-104532-final

 

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rchi-home-logo.png

10 Reasons JFK Jr. Crashed

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association July 16, 2020
 
On July 16, 1999, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. took off from Essex County Airport in Caldwell, New Jersey, at 8:39 p.m. At 9:41 p.m., he crashed his Piper Saratoga into the Atlantic Ocean seven and one-half miles short of his goal, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, killing himself; his wife, Carolyn; and sister-in-law, Lauren Bessette. Why did this happen and what can we learn from this high-profile crash that will make us all better, safer pilots?
 
1. Get-there-itis. Pilots talk about this common syndrome and some even joke about it. We think it will never happen to us, but it does. We could never be that headstrong, we reason, but we all have felt the urge to get there or, maybe even worse, to get home. Such was the case with Kennedy. He probably believed he had to get there at all costs, because he was flying to his cousin’s wedding and he had promised his sister, Caroline, who was vacationing in Idaho with her family,
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Franklin D Roosevelt in 1884, aged 2
Franklin-Roosevelt-1884.jpg

 

I knew little boys wore dresses back then but Mary Jane's? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...