• Category Archives Uncategorized
  • 50 Cent Comics – Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #122 (1987)


    At this year’s MegaCon in Orlando, I bought a bunch of comic books for 50 cents each and I’ve been posting my score here. Next up is Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #122.

    This particular story is titled ‘A Father’s Night Out’ and is from January 1987. It starts off with Peter finding a baby in an Alley. It turns out to be the son of Brendan Doyle, A.K.A. Mauler, a relatively obscure Spider-Man villain. Apparently he had been trying to take the baby from his mother and the mother tossed him out the window to protect him. I say obscure but there’s an interesting history here. Mauler is kind of like Iron Man in that it was a suit of armor produced by Stark Industries. There were a few different Maulers and he participated in the Civil War story-line to a small degree, at least in the comics.

    Spider-Man takes the baby to the hospital and prevents Mauler from taking him away. This, as you might expect, leads to the inevitable confrontation. Spider-Man handles him pretty easily (he’s no Iron Man) though wrecks part of the hospital in the process.

    There weren’t a whole lot of great ads in this issue but the back cover had this ad for Dungeons & Dragons Set #5: Immortal Rules. I still own Set #1 but I don’t think I ever got any other non-Advanced D&D stuff…

    See the previous 50 Cent Comics entry here: https://steemit.com/comics/@darth-azrael/0-cent-comics-spiderwoman-2-2015-1561988273452




  • Genealogy Mystery – Richard Wade Skaggs


    One of my occasional hobbies is genealogy. I think of it as a very personal way to learn history and I’ve always been interested in history. I’ve been able to trace most of the branches of my family back pretty far and the Internet in most cases has made this far, far easier than it used to be. However, one of my most direct lines ends in a mystery with a man who was born in ~1824. His name was Richard Wade Skaggs. If you have any documentation on who this person’s parents really were, I would greatly appreciate it.

    Here is the information I have on Richard Wade Skaggs, some of this came from a post I made on Ancestry a few years back:

    His death certificate lists his mother as Nannie Skaggs (supposedly maiden name according to the form) and his father as “Unknown”. Based on this I would guess that he was most likely born out of wedlock and that he took his mother’s last name. However, there could be some other explanation like perhaps the person (probably son) who provided the information didn’t know her maiden name…

    Some other relevant facts about Richard Wade Skaggs:

    According to an indenture made October 4th, 1841, Richard Wade Skaggs turned 14 in March 1841 (birth year would be 1827). His age was probably fudged for this to make him older.

    In the 1850 Census of Green County, Kentucky, Richard Wade Skaggs is listed as a laborer living with Stephen and Sarah Skaggs. He is listed as being 21 years old and born in Louisiana (birth year would be ~1829). Stephen and Sarah are about 10 years older so they couldn’t be his parents though I would have to assume that they are related somehow, probably through his mother.

    In the 1860 Census of Taylor County, Kentucky, Richard Wade Skaggs is listed as being 27 years old and born in Kentucky. (birth year would be ~1833)

    In the 1870 Census of Taylor County, Kentucky, Richard Wade Skaggs is listed as being 44 years old and born in Louisiana. (birth year would be ~1826)

    In the 1880 Census of Larue County, Kentucky, Richard Wade Skaggs is listed as being 52 years old and born in Kentucky. (birth year would be ~1828)

    In the 1900 Census of Larue County, Kentucky, Richard Wade Skaggs is listed as being 74 years old and born in Kentucky. (birth year would be ~1826)

    In the 1910 Census of Buffalo, Larue County, Kentucky he is listed as being 84 years old and born in Louisiana. (birth year would be ~1826)

    The death certificate of Richard Wade Skaggs lists his birth date as March 15, 1825 and his tombstone says March 15, 1824. His mother is listed as “Nannie Skaggs” and his father is listed as “Not Known”. His birth place, and the birth place of both parents is listed as “Kentucky”. The informant on the death certificate is James Skaggs (he had a son named James so that’s probably him).

    It seems to me that “Nannie” is probably a nickname or short for something like Nancy but I’m just speculating. Richard’s birthdate is uncertain but it seems likely to have been March 15th 1824 or 1825.

    Interestingly, there was a Richard Wade married to a Mary Skaggs mentioned in a lawsuit with a bunch of other Skaggs relatives (presumably). So speculating that these may have been Richard Wade Skaggs parents I tried to do some research on them. But this means his parents were married so why would he have taken his mother’s last name? Divorce before birth? Below is what I found on them. If you have more info on these individuals that prove (or disprove) that these were the parents of Richard Wade Skaggs, I’d love to hear about it.

    Relevant facts about Richard Wade and Mary Skaggs:

    A Richard Wade married to a Mary Skaggs was mentioned in a lawsuit in 1836 as follows:

    Green co., Ky., Order Books: Sept. 2, l836, John Skaggs vs. Jeremiah Skaggs. This day came the complainants by his counsel and filed his bill herein and on his motion and its appearing to the satisfaction of the courts that Jeremaih Skaggs, Richard Wade & Mary his wife formerly Skaggs, Wm. Graham and Sally his wife formerly Skaggs, Stephen Skaggs, James Skaggs, Nancy Skaggs, Elizabeth Skaggs, Jeremiah Skaggs, James Skaggs, John Pearce & Letta his wife, Henry Skaggs, James Skaggs, John Patterson and Jane his wife, John Jackson and Elizabeth his wife are not inhabitants of this Commonwealth. It is therefore ordered by the court that unless the sd. non resident defendants to appear here on or before the lst day of Dec. term next and file their answer to the complainants bill that said bill will be taken against them as confessed and the prayer thereof decreed accordingly.

    Then John also sues William Skaggs & the same people are listed.

    A Richard Wade and Mary Ann Skaggs are found in Louisiana as early as 1812. I’m just speculating at this point that these may be the same individuals mentioned above but it is compelling that they were in Louisiana and Richard Wade Skaggs had his birth place sometimes listed as Louisiana:

    Maritime Commerce and the Founding of Wadesboro, Tangipahoa Parish, & St. Helena Parish, Louisiana

    http://usgwarchives.net/la/lafiles.htm

    HISTORIC PONCHATOULA
    Maritime Commerce and the Founding of Wadesboro

    By JIM PERRIN
    Special to The Times
    (Part Two In A Series)

    On the Ponchatoula River early settler Richard Wade had established a location sometimes called Ponchatoula Landing, but usually referred to as Wade’s Landing. Richard Wade and his wife Mary Ann Skaggs (Scuggs, Skeggs) settled in St. Helena Parish by 1812, owning land on the Natalbany River, By 1819, Richard had established his landing on the Ponchatoula River. Wade was a cotton planter and also engaged in commerce at his landing. He was listed as owning 960 acres of land on tax lists in both 1824 and 1826 on the Ponchatoula River in what was then St. Helena Parish. He was also taxed as the owner of a tavern in 1826. In later years he was to lay out a town at his landing and begin the settlement of Wadesborough.

    A Richard Wade is listed in the 1820 Census of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana

    Richard Wade married Mary Ann Robson on March 13, 1829 in St. Helena parish, Louisiana (not sure what happened to Mary Ann Skaggs – did he really marry two different people named Mary Ann? Were these two different Richard Wades that both happened to marry someone named Marry Ann in the same parish?).

    Richard Wade sold land to a Mary Ann Robertson/Robinson on November 13, 1829 (is this person related to the Mary Ann Robson he married and how? These are probably just spelling variations because of transcription errors or other reasons… Is he selling land to his wife? Maybe her mother had the same name? What’s with all the Mary Ann variations?):

    Deeds: Richard Wade to Mary Ann Robinson, St. Helena Parish, LA

    http://usgwarchives.net/la/lafiles.htm

    State of Louisiana
    Parish of St. Helena

    Richard Wade to Mary Ann Robinson
    13 November 1829

    Know all men by these presents that I, Richard Wade of the parish of St. Helena and State of Louisiana, have this day for and in consideration of the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, cash to me in hand paid before the signing of the presents by Mary Ann Robertson of the said parish and State, grant, bargain, sold transferred, and conveyed and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, transfer and convey unto the said Mary Ann Robinson one half of a section of Land containing three hundred and twenty acres situate lying and being on the Ponchatola [sic] River on the east side of, Known by the name of Wades landing place, bounded on the north by Absolom Traylors land, on the east by lands of Jon Cone?, and on all other sides by vacant Lands. To have and to hold the afore said described premises unto the said Mary Ann Robinson, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and the said Richard Wade for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns unto the said Mary Ann Robertson, her heirs, and assigns shall and will warrant and forever defend the aforesaid described premises, hereby warranting and defending the aforesaid land from the claim or claims of all and every person or persons whomsoever.

    Done and passed before me Burlin Childress, parish Judge and ex officio notary public in and for said parish, on this Thirteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine in presence of Samuel Rankins, and Edward Gorman, witnesses who signed with me, the said Judge and notary.

    R. Wade

    Witness
    Edward Gorman
    Samuel Rankin

    Burlin Childress, P. J. ex N. OP.

    Source: Conveyance Records – St. Helena Parish, Louisiana (FHL Film 0355804-pg.
    337)

    A Richard Waid is listed in the 1830 Census of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana.

    Any help in solving the mystery of where these people came from would be greatly appreciated. I doubt this information can be found online (currently) because I’ve been looking for 20 years. However, if you happen to live in any of the places where Richard Wade Skaggs might have been born (Kentucky or Louisiana most likely) and happen to do genealogy research anyway, then keep your eyes out for Richard…and remember, I’m just speculating that the Richard Wade and Mary Ann Skaggs I mention above MIGHT be Richard Wade Skaggs parents and I can’t even be sure that the ones mentioned in the lawsuit in Kentucky are the same as the ones that were in Louisiana earlier. That’s all speculation on my part…

    For some more information on Richard Wade Skaggs, see http://familytrees.genopro.com/Azrael/Skaggs/Skaggs-RichardWade-ind00023.htm which includes most of the info I have on him.


  • Socialism’s Record Has Been Pain, Not Gain (Especially for the Poor)

    The overarching message of “The Opportunity Cost of Socialism”—a study recently released by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)—is that the advocacy of socialism cannot reasonably be based on policy preferences; its attraction has always been grounded in a combination of wishful thinking and ignorance. For example, the new CEA study shows that the socialist approach to “single payer” health care advocated by many on the left would cost much more and deliver much less, resulting in the significant worsening of mortality and morbidity, not just higher taxes and reduced economic growth.

    One prominent opinion page editor described the CEA study’s conclusions to me as too obvious to warrant mention. That reaction reflects the problem the study seeks to remedy. Obvious facts about socialism are not discussed enough. Few people are willing to read 50-page studies like the CEA’s, and there has been very little media coverage of it—journalists or politicians who could summarize the CEA findings haven’t seen sufficient reason to do so (or may themselves be among the uninformed advocates of socialism). That is too bad because the ignorant advocacy of socialism is currently a significant threat to our democracy.

    Socialism has existed in many forms that lie on a continuum, from the central planning nightmare of the USSR to the Scandinavian democratic experiments of several decades ago. The idea that unites the various embodiments of socialism along that continuum is that economic freedom is counterproductive to the aspirations of humanity. It would be far better and fairer, socialists argue, for the state to distribute scarce resources rather than letting the market allocate goods and services by itself. Socialism seeks control of economic decisions, either through central planning or through expropriative taxation and regulation, in the interest of the common man.

    The difference between market-based and socialist economies is not the presence of redistributive policies per se. For over a century, around the world, market-based economies have taxed and redistributed wealth and provided a host of services such as public education and care for the poor, sick, and elderly. The difference is that in market-based systems, taxation is regarded as an unfortunate burden employed out of necessity to ensure that other priorities are achieved. In contrast, in socialist regimes, taxation is not regarded as an undesirable consequence but as a means to prevent individuals from counterproductively controlling their collective economic destiny.

    Socialism’s appeal has always been its false promise to create wealth better than capitalism can. Advocates of socialism promise great economic achievements, which they argue are worth the price of reduced individual economic liberty. It is worth remembering that Karl Marx regarded socialism as an economic necessity that would emerge out of the ashes of capitalism precisely because capitalism would fail to sustain wealth creation. Marx made many specific, and erroneous, predictions about capitalism, including its declining profitability and rising unemployment. His analysis did not consider permanent economic growth in a capitalist system to be a possibility. And his “historical materialist” view of political choice claimed the rich and powerful would never share power voluntarily with their economic lessers, or create social safety nets. Writing in the mid-19th century, Marx fundamentally failed to understand the huge changes in technology, political suffrage, or social safety net policies that were occurring around him.

    Not only has socialist theory been wrong about the economic and political fruits of capitalism, but it also failed to see the problems that arise in socialist governments. Socialism’s record has been pain, not gain, especially for the poor. Socialism produced mass starvation in eastern Europe and China as it undermined the ability of farmers to grow and market their crops. In less extreme incarnations, such as the UK in the decades after World War II and before Margaret Thatcher, it stunted growth. In most cases, socialism’s monopoly on economic control also fomented corruption by government officials, as was especially apparent in Latin American and African socialist regimes. The adverse economic consequences of socialism led the Scandinavian countries to dial back their versions of socialism in the past decades. If the United States had imitated Scandinavian-style socialism, the CEA study estimates, our GDP today would be 19 percent lower.

    Socialism has been abandoned in virtually all of the developing world. Countries today do not seek to emulate the disasters of North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. They also avoid high taxation of the rich. That reflects the recognition that countries compete with each other for capital. Expropriating the rich tends to make them leave, and when they leave, they take their wealth with them.

    This philosophical shift in the developing world is a major change since the 1980s when socialism was still fashionable among some. The shift away from socialist thinking was grounded in the growing body of empirical evidence about the kinds of policies that produced growth and poverty alleviation—that is, policies that used markets as a lever of economic development. Now developing countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, India, China, South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia are known as “emerging economies,” a description that recognizes their need to emerge from state control of their economies through privatization, free trade, and the creation of viable private financial intermediaries to promote growth and poverty alleviation. All around the developing world, socialism is understood as a false promise, an ideological opium that repressive elites use to retain and expand power. Capitalism, in contrast, is seen as the force that has lifted over a billion people out of poverty worldwide since 1990.

    To historians, that was obvious long before the 1980s. Socialism has never conquered poverty. It has never competed with capitalism as a means of effectively allocating resources and promoting sustainable growth. Over the past half century, scores of economic historians have sought to explain the factors that produced the economic progress that Europe and some of its offshoots enjoyed in the 18th-20th centuries. This group of scholars, which includes Angus Maddison, Joel Mokyr, Eric Jones, David Landes, Deirdre McCloskey, and Douglass North, tends to hold quite diverse political preferences, but these individuals universally agree on the facts: Government policies that safeguard a combination of personal economic freedom and secure property rights and the ability of individuals to gain personally by participating in markets have promoted the effort and innovation that conquered poverty and promoted growth through the ages.

    The facts about socialism and capitalism may shock the young people of America, many of whom lionize Bernie Sanders, an unapologetic socialist who honeymooned in the USSR, as the new conscience of our nation—and many of whom, 51 percent according to Gallup, now have a positive view of socialism. Only 45 percent have a positive view of capitalism. That represents a 12-point decline in young adults’ positive views about capitalism in just the past two years.  Many of these young people are thoughtful and intelligent—but they are also ignorant about the history and economics of the systems they favor or condemn. This is the main reason why they must read this important CEA study.

    Source: Socialism’s Record Has Been Pain, Not Gain (Especially for the Poor) – Foundation for Economic Education


    Sponsored ( Powered by dclick )
    Warming tea for a cool morning

    We are looking for a first snow tonight…. #share2s

    logo

    This posting was written via
    dclick the Ads platform based on Steem Blockchain.