« Why Are the Democrats Letting Franken Twist in the Wind? | CVille Dem's Blog | The AIG Contracts - Let's Take a Look! »
The Question - TPM Edition
This is the next TPM Challenge --
First, an introduction: Quinn introduced me to a site that poses an annual question to erudite people. Some examples are, "What do you think is true even though you can't prove it?," or "What is the most important innovation in the last 2,000 years?" I won't go on, because I will give the website and you can check it out for yourself.
Although I am not a big "rule" person, I will make one suggestion, which is not one that the original website uses: I would suggest that you spend some time thinking about your answer before reading those of other people because it will increase the creativity quotient. In fact, I will make an alteration in the way to handle this -- give your well-thought out answer to the question, and then add another based on responses from those that have made you rethink your answer. Aren't we adaptable?
OK! Here is the FIRST QUESTION:
What event of the last 100 years would you change?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the website:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The next question: DO NOT ANSWER THIS NOW! THINK ABOUT IT, and if the response to this one is interesting I will propose it in due time:
What would our country be like today if our ancestors had repudiated the institution of slavery?
Quinn, thanks again for this great, mind exercise!
First, an introduction: Quinn introduced me to a site that poses an annual question to erudite people. Some examples are, "What do you think is true even though you can't prove it?," or "What is the most important innovation in the last 2,000 years?" I won't go on, because I will give the website and you can check it out for yourself.
Although I am not a big "rule" person, I will make one suggestion, which is not one that the original website uses: I would suggest that you spend some time thinking about your answer before reading those of other people because it will increase the creativity quotient. In fact, I will make an alteration in the way to handle this -- give your well-thought out answer to the question, and then add another based on responses from those that have made you rethink your answer. Aren't we adaptable?
OK! Here is the FIRST QUESTION:
What event of the last 100 years would you change?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the website:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The next question: DO NOT ANSWER THIS NOW! THINK ABOUT IT, and if the response to this one is interesting I will propose it in due time:
What would our country be like today if our ancestors had repudiated the institution of slavery?
Quinn, thanks again for this great, mind exercise!
Advertisement












I would change the decision of the 2000 Supreme Court to allow the winner to become President of the United States of America.
I don't know what kind of a President Al Gore would have been. I don't know if heeding the warning about "BinLadin determined to Attack the US" would have stopped the attacks on 911. I also don't know if the warnings about people learning to fly planes without caring about how to land them would have gotten the attention of a Gore administration.
I am damn sure that:
1. We would not have pre-emptively attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911.
2. Because #1 wouldn't have happened many thousands of people would be alive today who are dead, and many thousands who are maimed would be whole.
3. Many people who despise the US would probably not have an opinion one way or the other, or it would be vaguely positive.
4. We would be much farther along in renewable resource development.
5. Our country would not be associated with torture.
6. OK, honestly, Barack Obama might not be our current President, because we might not have needed such a hugely competent fixer.
Other ideas? I reserve the right to join back in!
March 4, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked there was a pretty strong connection between Iraq and the Taliban. If you give me your home address I will buy you a copy of Stephen Hayes' book.
March 4, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but what would you CHANGE, MCB? This isn't about critiquing people's ideas; it is an exercise in thinking about things.
March 5, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was simply pointing out that you are spreading lies about there being no connection between Iraq and the Taliban. What I would CHANGE is people like you that feed off of misinformation and like to share it with others.
March 5, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon MCB, admit it. You would have rolled back the amendment against Presidents being able to run for 3rd terms, and thus seen Bush elected to a victorious 3rd term! ;-)
March 5, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. I don't miss Bush at all. I just wish we had someone other than Obama. Obama's goal for budget deficit reduction TARGET is higher than any deficit that Bush had during his term. He's talking about $513billion by 2013. The largest deficit we've ever seen so far is only about $450bn. Yikes
March 5, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen Hayes?
The man has been thoroughly discredited many times in the past.
March 5, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are relying on "MediaMatters" as your source. Is that an unbiased forum? Hardly.
March 5, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media Matters for America is unquestionably a biased site, but the bias need be understood. They point out errors from the right-side of the political bipolarity only, and that is the extent of their bias. Media Matters for America backs up what they publish with thoroughly researched evidence for citations, proving their assertions. They may not be balanced in what they choose to report, but what they publish is honest.
Your argument is a valueless ad hominem attack because of this.
March 6, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't just attack the messenger without cause, prove the message is false:
Note that both of these Media Matters articles use many citations to Reports published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which at the time they were published, was chaired by Pat Roberts (R-KS), who for several years was derelict in his Senatorial duties, by avoiding any real investigation into the Bush Administration's use of pre-Iraq War intelligence, an inquiry Roberts had promised in public many times to do.
March 6, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't prove that what MM writes is true. Why do I have to prove it's false?
March 7, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea of changing one event in the stream of so many events throws me back on the question of what is history in the way Tolstoy asked about it.
If I use my one wish to have either Hitler or Stalin die before becoming powerful, would that be enough to stop the terrible things done under their authority?
If I directed Joe McCarthy to have suddenly taken an interest in model trains instead of wondering who could be branded as a communist, would that have headed off the orgy of fear that his name has become synonymous with?
One could say yes to all of these questions and be sure that the story would have been very different. But that very different story may have also been awful.
March 4, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
March 5, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link to the website. Great concept. Here's my first thought:
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand June 28, 1914. The whole world shifted that day and the chain of events it unleashed shaped the rest of the 20th century: the mass slaughter of WWI and the advent of modern warfare, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 that set up the Germany that would lead to Hitler's rise to power, plus the French, English and the US drew a line around the Mesopotamian oil fields and created Iraq.
If the Treaty of Versailles hadn't crushed the German economy, it's doubtful that Hitler and his National Socialist party would have come into existence. And if the same powers that carved up the Ottoman Empire and taken over those Mideast oil fileds, imagine how different the world would look today.
On a more personal/selfish note, I wish a bus had run over John Lennon's assassin earlier in the day back in December 1980.
March 4, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"hadn't taken over the oil fields"
March 4, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're channeling me today astral.
March 5, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have made JP Morgan an actual patron of Nikola Tesla instead of someone out to kill his ideas in the womb. Much of our current global chaos centers on the acquisition and protection of energy resources. Telsa would have solved the energy dilemma with proper funding and the ability to pursue the limits of his genius. It might have kept him (and us) from slipping into madness as well.
If we go back 200 years, Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason is as big of a success as Common Sense and has just as much influence on world religious practices as the latter had on the notion of democratic society to replace centuries of hereditary rule. His dismantling of the Old and New Testament could have given religion a much needed reality check before we started marching into the future we live today. I suspect he would have taken on Islam as well had the reception been better than a French prison for penning The Age of Reason.
If we go back 500 years, I would have made Da Vinci's brand of deism, science and vision be enough to transition us from the Dark Ages to a more modern society hundreds of years ahead of what we actually lived to achieve. That would have been five hundred years of science based on understanding creation vice dominating it and societal evolution that might not have included religious intolerance in such a pivotal position in our development.
Hell, go back 1700 years and Constantine never converts to Christianity and the Roman Empire figures out a way to evolve into modern society without actually collapsing into the Dark Ages and all that came afterward. The advanced nature of Roman society almost guarantees we'd have flying cars and settlements on Mars by now.
Seems to me, that our biggest challenge during the development of "modern civilization" has been a stubborn inability to truly transition beyond our caveman roots. We just have more sophisticated clubs today.
March 5, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alright Cville! My first thought was that I wouldn't change anything that had occurred too far back in the century, simply because the web of things that have followed is too wide - too many good things possibly destroyed, too many other bad possibilities that may have filled the vacuum. (Though erasing Hitler/Stalin sure seems a moral imperative.)
As I moved into more recent decades, I would have attempted to erase Reagan, simply because I believe he was so key to Bush and the nightmare we now see before us. But still, too far back in time.
If I kept it to the last decade, I'd do the move you suggested - Gore for Bush.
But if I had to keep it really recent - as in within the last 3 months - I would change Obama's economic appointments, especially Geithner and Summers. I suspect we had to go through this stage, where we attempt to salvage the old form of the system. But I don't see it as likely to work, and I believe the damage already rolling out worldwide, with millions more unemployed and millions to come, will - as it turns into obvious social and political consequences - be seen as a terrible error. A waste of time. When we really need to have people thinking out ahead. I don't even know their names, but at least people who scan the horizon and the margins of economic thinking, and who would have already begun to experiment.
Thanks for kicking this of Cville, and I really hope people will go scan that Edge site and just splash around a little. I found it really really useful for cracking open my brain, and piping in a little brain food!!
March 5, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for chiming in, Quinn, and of course for starting this in the first place. I'm with you as to going back too far; too many unknowns; too many possibilities for even worse scenarios, but still interesting nonetheless.
Jason went WAY back, and I think that added to the discussion as well. I've been thinking a lot about that second question that I posed at the top (for another time) -- it can make your brain explode just thinking of all the implications and possibilities.
March 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with this more contemporary pick. I think someone like Robert Kuttner as Treasury Sec would have been a truly transformational pick.
March 5, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good take on the time element and longer times effect on the ensuing nstring of events. Hari Seldon would be proud of you Q.
March 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and happy belated birthday Q.
March 5, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rec'd this yesterday. I like it. Do some more.
I just can only think about the 2000 election because that is how we ended up here. But we would not have so many crises with the chance to transform an entire electorate and an entire economic system.
I like the movies where they go back in time, even some of the cheapies. It is fun. But like that silly Kutcher film, we would probably screw everything up.
March 5, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would've stuck Steve Bartman in the upper deck that fateful October day a few years ago, and the Cubbies would have their World Series!
March 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that in order for the Cubbies to win, the laws of physics will have had to somehow have been repealed.
Which means that little wannabe dinger would probably have floated UP to where Bartman was sitting, where he would have (once again) ensured that God's Will was done - namely, that the Cubbies never win.
P.S. Go Cards! ;-)
March 5, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never liked you.
March 5, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Bartman interfered with Alou on that foul ball, the score was 8-3, Chicago.
Can the loss *really* be put on Bartman? I mean, did he pitch, too? ;-)
March 5, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we can all wish we had sold "X" stocks about a year ago!
March 5, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or that derivatives either hadn't been invented or were not opaque to analysis.
March 5, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have suggested a rewrite of the Treaty of Versailles but, given that the consensus seems to be to keep it more current, how about this:
How about un-inventing plastic? (Despite the ironic appeal of that classic line "Plastics, my boy" in The Graduate.)
No eternal waste problem because no shrink wrap, no plastic grocery bags, diapers, blah, blah. And therefore...well, you know the therefore.
March 5, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Treaty of Versailles is what came to my mind, too, WW. It seems that a great many of the ills we're confronting today spring from it.
If we're talking recent, it would have to be the election of BushII
March 5, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only I had the magic. I would cancel the assassinations of JFK RFK and MLK.
Not sure if I could properly choose two out of the three, but for me the murder of Bobby was and still is taken personally. Ditto the murder of MLK. And JFK's murder has not been adequately solved, for me.
Since others have trespassed over the century line I'll admit that my first thought was canceling/preventing the assassination of Lincoln, who awakened on his last morning feeling good, and for such wonderful reason.
March 5, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off the top of my head, I would suggest the elimination of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria in 1914, which set up the chain of alliances declaring war culminating in WWIand the Balkinization of much of eastern Europe and the Middle East. Reparations for which culminated in WWII, the holocaust, and the development of the atom bomb. Which resulted in an international arms race and about half a century of cold war, and everyone in the world having to come to terms with living with the bomb. Having said all that, who knows how much worse it might have played out if events hadn't transpired as they in fact did?
March 5, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest world-wide catastrophe of the last 200 years was the 1980 Presidential Election. A second Carter term would have prevented the Reagan debacle.
In turn, the entire conservative movement would have been restricted to the fairly-consistent 28% segment of brain-dead voters in this country. We might have avoided Clinton, Dubya, and perhaps even Jason Everett Miller!
March 5, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would change my mother's decision not to go to the doctor for several months to check a lump she discovered in her breast. Her delay cost her, her life at the age of 53.
March 5, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The WWI answers are probably best but I'd also cancel the escalation in Vietnam. Vietnam destroyed the Presidency of the last liberal President and divided a generation leaving the way open for a conservative resurgency and a Democratic Party still too intimidated to oppose the war in Iraq or even to get out of Iraq now. To this day, we have not learned the lessons of over commitment abroad. We got guns. We gave up butter. Look at the mess we're in now!
March 5, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry about your mother. My cousin was recently diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer at 56.
March 5, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. It's been slightly over 20 years now and not a day goes by that I don't think of and miss her though thankfully the immediate, crushing and intense sorrow lifts after a few years. She was an extraordinary human being.
March 5, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink