Not just an actor. Lee was easily the greatest martial artist of the last hundred years. He invented his very own form of martial arts, Jeet Kun Do, when he was only 27. He could perform two-finger pushups, throw grains of rice in the air and catch them with chop sticks, and his striking speed from three feet away with his hands down was five hundredths of a second. He had well over 2,500 books in his personal library. When asked in 1972 if he believed in God, Bruce responded, "To be perfectly frank, I really do not."
Joss Whedon
This guy is the creator of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Dollhouse. Most people would say his fanbase is loyal, but I prefer to use the word "cult."
Douglas Adams
Author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and writer for many television shows throughout the years, including Dr. Who.
Gene Roddenberry
Creator of Star Trek, he viewed his imaginary universe as the perfect humanist society.
Kurt Vonnegut
One of the 20th century's greatest writers. Author of Slaughterhouse-Five, Breakfast of Champions, and Cat's Cradle.
David Cross
Co-Creator of HBO's Mr. Show and starred as Tobias Fünke on Arrested Development. Easily one of my favorite comedians.
Ricky Gervais
Comedian and star of the highly underrated Extras and the British version of The Office.
Ian McKellen
Gandalf and Magneto. Here he is on Extras.
Patton Oswalt
Probably my favorite living comedian.
Adam Savage
Mythbusters.
Henry Rollins
Jack of all trades. Henry Rollins started off as a punk rocker in the 80s as the frontman for Black Flag, and since then has been a comedian, actor, social commentator, and star of his own Henry Rollins Show on IFC. He played Weston on the last season of Sons of Anarchy, and he will probably go down as the coolest bad guy that show will ever see.
Media, as far as I see it, is splitting into two groups. There is 'mainstream media' - the cable news channels that benefit more from telling you what your opinion is than reporting news. Then there's the internet. For me, it's mostly Reddit, particularly, the /r/politics subreddit. Reddit operates because of its community. People submit stories, and other people upvote the stories based on their importance. I guess you could say its community is liberal, but I prefer to think that facts have a liberal bias. I'm slightly ashamed to say it, but I get most of my news from reddit. When you get your news from community-driven internet sources, there is no filter. You are cutting out the middle man. And in an America where news organizations can legally lie to its audience, it is our responsibility to cut out the middle man.
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security shut down 82 websites for piracy with no court order. In terms of free distribution of information that's actually important, this isn't all that notable. But it sets two crucial precedents: that matters of copyright are now matters of security, and that the government can shut down web sites whenever it chooses. This is terrifying.
Media worldwide is currently going on a jihad against Wikileaks. A U.S. Representative wants to label wikileaks as a terrorist organization, completely unaware that terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation. Whether or not you agree with what Wikileaks is doing, using language like this is irresponsible and downright dangerous. What's even more dangerous is that mainstream media has thrown objectivity out the window and is once again asking "how high?" after the government says to jump.
The world has just entered the digital age. The digital age, by easily distributing information to people, will give more power to people. Think about the last time something like this happened: the printing press. The printing press was catastrophic for the power structure. The masses became smart enough to begin questioning religion, and so we get the Age of Enlightenment. That was followed by an age of worldwide revolution throughout the 19th century led almost entirely by an educated populace. Whenever people gain knowledge, the status quo loses power. What we're seeing now is the status quo catching on, and so it's trying to stamp it out before it can gain a foothold. Their goal is to control the digital age. I'm not saying it's some worldwide conspiracy, they're not doing it consciously. It's just what people will naturally do when they're at risk of losing power. I honestly believe that humanity is standing on crossroads right now. This is where we decide whether we'll be the humanistic utopia of Star Trek, or the braindead phantasm of Brave New World.
This guy is Mumia Abu-Jamal. In 1981 he was convicted of murdering a police officer. He was an activist, journalist, and until 1970, he was a member of the Black Panther Party. He's extremely controversial. People debate about whether or not he received a fair trial, or whether or not he's even guilty. Personally, I'm on the fence. You can do some google research about the whole thing if you want, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all a matter of someone's word over someone else's, and I don't think we can ever know. He's a pretty bright guy regardless, and he's been doing this "Prison Radio" thing for a number of years.
All aboard the self-victimization train! Thanksgiving has come and gone, and you know what that means! It's my favorite time of year! It's when the religious right make shit up about what atheists and agnostics believe, and vastly overestimate the tiny influence they have to boost ratings! It's officially CHRISTMAS TIME!
I'm tired of political correctness telling me what I can and can't say, that's why atheists should shut the fuck up. THE MAJORITY IS ALWAYS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT.
An opinion I don't agree with? FREE SPEECH MY ASS, THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. ONLY YEAR ROUND CHRISTIAN BILLBOARDS ARE ACCEPTABLE. TAKE IT DOWN MISTER GRINCH 9/11 CHOO CHOOOOO
The Ascent of Everest formed in 2005 in Nashville. That is literally all the information I can find on them. They're a post-rock band who have found a way to combine soothing ambience with a swelling, unrelenting barrage of strings. I probably now consider them my favorite post-rock band after Explosions in the Sky, but in fairness, EITS can never be topped by anything ever.
Their first CD, How Lonely Sits The City is the better of the two in my opinion. The songs are much longer, giving them more time to build up and explode, while the songs on their second CD, From This Vantage, have a harder time standing on their own; the CD is better listened to in its entirety. What few vocals there are in How Lonely seem more like obscure background noise, while in their second CD they're brought forward a little more. The Ascent of Everest's sound isn't necessarily sad, as much as it's filled with a sort of beautiful melancholy, and yes, there is a difference. The first song here is from How Lonely Sits The City and the next two are on From This Vantage. Molotov definitely makes it into my top five favorite songs of all time.
BOSTON—The constitutionality of a New Hampshire law that requires schools to authorize a time each day for students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance has been upheld by a federal appeals court that found the oath's reference to God doesn't violate students' rights.
A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Friday affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who found that students can use the phrase "under God" when reciting the pledge.
[...]
The parents, who identified themselves and their children as atheist and agnostic, said the pledge is a religious exercise because it uses the phrase "under God." They argued the recitation of the pledge at school made their children "outsiders" to their peers on the grounds of their religion.
The pledge, written in 1892 by socialist writer and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy, partly to help heal sectional hatred still lingering from the Civil War decades earlier, is: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
[...]
"In reciting the Pledge, students promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church," Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote for the court. "The New Hampshire School Patriot Act's primary effect is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism through a pledge to the flag as a symbol of the nation."
California physician and attorney Michael Newdow, who has fought for years to strip the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, said he likely will appeal the ruling by asking the three-judge panel to reconsider or to refer the case to the full appeals court for a hearing.
"Once again, we have federal judges doing what is politically popular as opposed to upholding the Constitution," said Newdow, who represented the plaintiffs in the case.
He said the case isn't about "whether you believe in God or don't believe in God."
"It's whether you believe in the government respecting us all equally or the government favoring your religious views," he said.
[...]
"This appeals court reached a significant and sound decision that underscores what most Americans understand -- that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance embraces patriotism, not religion," the group's chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said in a statement.
This isn't a surprise. 'Under God' will never be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, but that shouldn't stop patriotic Americans from raising a fuss from time to time to remind everyone that it's illegal. Whenever I recite the pledge, I specifically remain silent when everyone else says 'Under God.' I don't really know why. I know no one else is going to hear me. It just makes me feel better I suppose.
This is common knowledge among atheists at this point, but 'Under God' was inserted into the pledge in 1954 during the Red Scare. Eisenhower decided to push it through after hearing about the idea in a sermon. It's not about religion though. God has nothing to do with religion.
"The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance embraces patriotism, not religion."
Wait, there's a difference? He just said atheists and agnostics aren't patriotic.
In the aftermath of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, after Stewart lumped much of MSNBC in with Fox News, I find it really awesome that Olbermann and Maddow have spoken out so strongly. Even before the rally, there's been a lot of voices echoing the notion that MSNBC is the equivalent to Fox News, but liberal. But unlike Fox News, if MSNBC reports something about the a politician, it isn't because they're biased, or they're trying to spread an agenda. It's because it's the truth. Anyone who actually watches Olbermann or Maddow will know that they're critical of what Obama does all the time. Olbermann brilliantly laid this mindset to waste.
A potential repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" popped up a couple months ago and John McCain, American Hero, led the charge to strike it down. Here's a reporter a few weeks ago asking what McCain's thoughts were about DADT being used as a tool to seek out closeted gays in the military. It's widely known that when Republicans hear things they don't like, they shove their fingers in their ears and pretend it's not real. But this phenomenon has never been displayed so literally. Or so hilariously.
John McCain said that we couldn't do anything about DADT until we see what sort of impact its repeal would have on troop morale. Since then, the Pentagon has conducted a study, and found that the troops overwhelmingly don't give a shit. End of discussion, right? Gay people can serve now?
McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that he did not think the Senate should lift the ban during the lame-duck session that begins this week.
"Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The Secretary of Defense says it's a good idea. The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff says it's a good idea. The American troops think it's a good idea. Senator McCain should just man up and say openly what everyone knows already: he doesn't want gay people in the military, and no amount of evidence will change his mind. What a pathetic piece of shit.
His wife Cindy recently appeared in a NOH8 ad speaking out against anti-gay bullying and DADT. The tremendous amount of respect she earned from me only lasted for about five minutes. A couple days ago, I guess she changed her mind.
"I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT."
BACK TO A TIME WHERE WE HUNG FAGGOTS AND WOMEN DIDN'T HAVE OPINIONS!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
Imagine that you read a headline that says education is being cut even further - by forty percent. What do you do? If you're like me and every other American, you're going to silently frown and go about your day.
There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.
Student leaders condemned the violence as "despicable".
They say about 50,000 people took part in a march through Westminster earlier.
A stand-off is still taking place between about two dozen demonstrators and the police, with 32 people having been arrested so far.
According to Scotland Yard, 14 people have been injured, including seven police officers. No-one was seriously hurt.
The vast majority of demonstrators had been peaceful, a statement said, but "a small minority" had damaged property.
[...]
One of the protesters who got on to the roof was Manchester student Emily Parks.
"It shows how angry people are," she told BBC News.
"Why is our education being cut? Why are tuition fees going up here when in other parts people have free education? People have felt the need to take matters into their own hands."
[...]
Hundreds of coachloads of students and lecturers had travelled to London from across England for the demonstration in Whitehall, with 2,000 students also travelling from Wales.
National Union of Students president Aaron Porter condemned the violence as "despicable".
"This was not part of our plan," he said.
"This action was by others who have come out and used this opportunity to hijack a peaceful protest."
[...]
Among the crowds at the rally in London were about 400 students from Oxford.
Oxford University Student Union President David Barclay said: "This is the day a generation of politicians learn that though they might forget their promises, students won't.
What struck me most when watching that video was the realization of how far left I've become. I mean, I certainly wouldn't have joined in had been there, because I'm kind of a pussy, but that wouldn't have stopped me from cheering them on from the sidelines. A year ago I would've condemned the little shitheads for not understanding the definition of "democracy," but now I'm convinced that scary protests like this is what protects democracy all around the world. Corporate interests have highjacked democracy. We've been peacefully protesting for the last decade, and it hasn't done shit. Look at where we're at. Violence against human beings is abhorrent and should be avoided at all costs, but the destruction of property is the only language these people understand. If your only solution is standing there with a sign and blowing air our of your lungs, neocons are just going to wait for you to leave. If you want to get peoples' attention, you have to stop traffic.
And these protests are happening all over Europe. In America, where the global economic crisis originated, we're not protesting at all. Instead we're clamoring to go back to the policies that caused everything. It's an embarrassment.
America's position on the fascist scale isn't quite back to McCarthyism yet, but these Republican whisperings of 'investigations' should raise the eyebrows of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. I don't know what our country is going to turn into (if anything) once the new Congress is seated, but if a charismatic figure emerges from the Tea Party, I'm buying a gun. I've kind of wanted to anyway after teaching rifle and shotgun to boy scouts this summer, but protecting myself in case a fascist uprising occurs in America will simply be a convenient byproduct.
American politics, as the midterm elections demonstrated, have descended into the irrational. On one side stands a corrupt liberal class, bereft of ideas and unable to respond coherently to the collapse of the global economy, the dismantling of our manufacturing sector and the deadly assault on the ecosystem. On the other side stands a mass of increasingly bitter people whose alienation, desperation and rage fuel emotionally driven and incoherent political agendas. It is a recipe for fascism.
More than half of those identified in a poll by the Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports as “mainstream Americans” now view the tea party favorably. The other half, still grounded in a reality-based world, is passive and apathetic. The liberal class wastes its energy imploring Barack Obama and the Democrats to promote sane measures including job creation programs, regulation as well as criminal proceedings against the financial industry, and an end to our permanent war economy. Those who view the tea party favorably want to tear the governmental edifice down, with the odd exception of the military and the security state, accelerating our plunge into a nation of masters and serfs. The corporate state, unchallenged, continues to turn everything, including human beings and the natural world, into commodities to exploit until exhaustion or collapse.
All sides of the political equation are lackeys for Wall Street. They sanction, through continued deregulation, massive corporate profits and the obscene compensation and bonuses for corporate managers. Most of that money—hundreds of billions of dollars—is funneled upward from the U.S. Treasury. The Sarah Palins and the Glenn Becks use hatred as a mobilizing passion to get the masses, fearful and angry, to call for their own enslavement as well as to deny uncomfortable truths, including global warming. Our dispossessed working class and beleaguered middle class are vulnerable to this manipulation because they can no longer bear the chaos and uncertainty that come with impoverishment, hopelessness and loss of control. They have retreated into a world of illusion, one peddled by right-wing demagogues, which offers a reassuring emotional consistency. This consistency appears to protect them from the turmoil in which they have been forced to live. The propaganda of a Palin or a Beck may insult common sense, but, for a growing number of Americans, common sense has lost its validity.
The liberal class, which remains rooted in a world of fact, rationalizes placating corporate power as the only practical response. It understands the systems of corporate power. It knows the limitations and parameters. And it works within them. The result, however, is the same. The entire spectrum of the political landscape collaborates in the strangulation of our disenfranchised working class, the eroding of state power, the criminal activity of the financial class and the paralysis of our political process.
Commerce cannot be the sole guide of human behavior. This utopian fantasy, embraced by the tea party as well as the liberal elite, defies 3,000 years of economic history. It is a chimera. This ideology has been used to justify the disempowerment of the working class, destroy our manufacturing capacity, and ruthlessly gut social programs that once protected and educated the working and middle class. It has obliterated the traditional liberal notion that societies should be configured around the common good. All social and cultural values are now sacrificed before the altar of the marketplace.
The failure to question the utopian assumptions of globalization has left us in an intellectual vacuum. Regulations, which we have dismantled, were the bulwarks that prevented unobstructed brutality and pillaging by the powerful and protected democracy. It was a heavily regulated economy, as well as labor unions and robust liberal institutions, which made the American working class the envy of the industrialized world. And it was the loss of those unions, along with a failure to protect our manufacturing, which transformed this working class into a permanent underclass clinging to part-time or poorly paid jobs without protection or benefits.
The “inevitability” of globalization has permitted huge pockets of the country to be abandoned economically. It has left tens of millions of Americans in economic ruin. Private charity is now supposed to feed and house the newly minted poor, a job that once, the old liberal class argued, belonged to the government. As John Ralston Saul in “The Collapse of Globalization” points out, “the role of charity should be to fill the cracks of society, the imaginative edges, to go where the public good hasn’t yet focused or can’t. Dealing with poverty is the basic responsibility of the state.” But the state no longer has the interest or the resources to protect us. And the next target slated for elimination is Social Security.
That human society has an ethical foundation that must be maintained by citizens and the state is an anathema to utopian ideologues of all shades. They always demand that we sacrifice human beings for a distant goal. The propagandists of globalization—from Lawrence Summers to Francis Fukuyama to Thomas Friedman—do for globalization and the free market what Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky did for Marxism. They sell us a dream. These elite interpreters of globalism are the vanguard, the elect, the prophets, who alone grasp a great absolute truth and have the right to impose this truth on a captive people no matter what the cost. Human suffering is dismissed as the price to be paid for the coming paradise. The response of these propagandists to the death rattles around them is to continue to speak in globalization’s empty rhetoric and use state resources to service a dead system. They lack the vision to offer any alternative. They can function only as systems managers. They will hollow out the state to sustain a casino capitalism that is doomed to fail. And what they offer as a solution is as irrational as the visions of a Christian America harbored by many within the tea party.
We are ruled by huge corporate monopolies that replicate the political and economic power, on a vastly expanded scale, of the old trading companies of the 17th and 18th centuries. Wal-Mart’s gross annual revenues of $250 billion are greater than those of most small nation-states. The political theater funded by the corporate state is composed of hypocritical and impotent liberals, the traditional moneyed elite, and a disenfranchised and angry underclass that is being encouraged to lash out at the bankrupt liberal institutions and the government that once protected them. The tea party rabble, to placate their anger, will also be encouraged by their puppet masters to attack helpless minorities, from immigrants to Muslims to homosexuals. All these political courtiers, however, serve the interests of the corporate state and the utopian ideology of globalism. Our social and political ethic can be summed up in the mantra let the market decide. Greed is good.
The old left—the Wobblies, the Congress of Industrial Workers (CIO), the Socialist and Communist parties, the fiercely independent publications such as Appeal to Reason and The Masses—would have known what to do with the rage of our dispossessed. It used anger at injustice, corporate greed and state repression to mobilize Americans to terrify the power elite on the eve of World War I. This was the time when socialism was not a dirty word in America but a promise embraced by millions who hoped to create a world where everyone would have a chance. The steady destruction of the movements of the left was carefully orchestrated. They fell victim to a mixture of sophisticated forms of government and corporate propaganda, especially during the witch hunts for communists, and overt repression. Their disappearance means we lack the vocabulary of class warfare and the militant organizations, including an independent press, with which to fight back.
We believe, like the Spaniards in the 16th century who pillaged Latin America for gold and silver, that money, usually the product of making and trading goods, is real. The Spanish empire, once the money ran out and it no longer produced anything worth buying, went up in smoke. Today’s use in the United States of some $12 trillion in government funds to refinance our class of speculators is a similar form of self-deception. Money markets are still treated, despite the collapse of the global economy, as a legitimate source of trade and wealth creation. The destructive power of financial bubbles, as well as the danger of an unchecked elite, was discovered in ancient Athens and detailed more than a century ago in Emile Zola’s novel “Money.” But we seem determined to find out this self-destructive force for ourselves. And when the second collapse comes, as come it must, we will revisit wrenching economic and political tragedies forgotten in the mists of history.
I'm in a Civil War class right now and I'm loving it. When reading history, it's best to try to objectively judge the figures based on the standards of their own time. That's the best way to enjoy history, and it's only fair to them. That means not comparing things to modern day politics. Sometimes this is really hard not to do. It makes me feel like Glenn Beck, pretending to be some sort of pseudo-historian, feeling around in the dark for patterns I want to see. Take, for example, the comparison I find myself making between Southern secessionists and the modern Tea Party movement (it's fair to say that most Southern sympathizers today would associate with the Tea Party, so I'm not completely off right?). But god damn it, the similarities are just too hard to ignore. I can't just shut my eyes and pretend they're not there. You see the rich and privileged Southerners with everything to gain spread propaganda and misinformation to convince the poor whites that it was their fight. After a few peeps, the Southern moderates follow along without question as the radicals stamp them out. Their ranks are filled with paranoid conspiracy theorists who are afraid of their enemies not because of what they are doing, but because of what they might do. It's like a bizarro revolution, where instead of fighting for the oppressed and the ideas of the enlightenment, they're fighting for ignorance and keeping the oppressed in shackles.
Well, in our book, McPherson explains what's going on. The Southern secessionist movement was a counterrevolution, and whenever these pop up in history, they are never portrayed in a good light. A counterrevolution is a backlash against revolutionary principles. When abolitionists started gaining a little traction in the early 1800s, Southerners stopped looking at slavery as a necessary evil, and transformed it into a moral institution to be embraced.
Here's an awesome excerpt from the book, with Lincoln ridiculing the South's idea of tyranny. I would argue that the South's idea of tyranny mirrors the modern Republican party's childish view towards Obama.
Revolution was "a moral right, when exercised for a morally justifiable cause," wrote Lincoln. But "when exercised without such a cause revolution is no right, but simply a wicked exercise of physical power." The South had no just cause. The event that precipitated secession was the election of a president by a constitutional majority. The "central idea" of the Union cause, said Lincoln, "is the necessity . . . of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose."
And here's the very long excerpt showing what I believe to be similarities between then and now, and a further explanation of counterrevolutions. Just for reference, whenever you see the phrase "Black Republican," that was an inflammatory name Southerners gave to Republicans to imply that they're black sympathizers.
But the American Revolution, not the French, was the preferred model for secessionists. Liberté they sought, but not égalité or fraternité. Were not "the men of 1776 . . . secessionists?" asked an Alabamian. From "the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights . . . which our fathers bequeathed to us," declared Jefferson Davis, let us "renew such sacrifices as our fathers made to the holy cause of constitutional liberty."
What were these rights and liberties for which Confederates contended? The right to own slaves; the liberty to take this property into the territories; freedom from the coercive powers of a centralized government. Black Republican rule in Washington threatened republican freedoms as the South understood them. The ideology for which the Fathers had fought in 1776 posited an eternal struggle between liberty and power. Because the Union after March 4, 1861, would no longer be controlled by southerners, the South could protect its liberty from the assaults of hostile powers only by going out of the Union. "On the 4th of March, 1861," declared a Georgia secessionist, "we are either slaves in the Union or freemen out of it." The question, agreed Jefferson Davis and a fellow Mississippian, was "Will you be slaves or will be independent? . . . Will you consent to be robbed of your property" or will you "strike bravely for liberty, property, honor and life?"
What stake did nonslaveholding whites have in this crusade for the freedom of planters to own slaves? Some secessionists worried a great deal about this question. What if Hinton Rowan Helper was right? What if nonslaveowners were potential Black Republicans? "The great lever by which the abolitionists hope to extirpate slavery in the States is the aid of non-slaveholding citizens in the South," fretted a Kentucky editor. How would they ply this lever? By using the patronage to build up a cadre of Republican officeholders among nonslaveowners--first in the border states and upcountry, where slavery was most vulnerable, and then in the heart of the cotton kingdom itself. Governor Joseph E. Brown of Georgia feared that some whites would be "bribed into treachery to their own section, by the allurements of office." When Republicans organized their "Abolition party . . . of Southern men," echoed the Charleston Mercury, "the contest for slavery will no longer be one between the North and South. It will be in the South, between the people of the South."
[...]
So [secessionists] undertook a campaign to convince nonslaveholders that they too had a stake in disunion. The stake was white supremacy. In this view, the Black Republican program of abolition was the first step toward racial equality and amalgamation. Georgia's Governor Brown carried this message to his native uplands of north Georgia, whose voters idolized him. Slavery "is the poor man's best Government," said Brown. "Among us the poor white laborer . . . does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense his equal. . . . He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men." Thus, yeoman farmers "will never consent to submit to abolition rule," for they "know that in the event of the abolition of slavery, they would be greater sufferers than the rich, who would be able to protect themselves." Much secessionist rhetoric played variations on this theme. The election of Lincoln, declared an Alabama newspaper, "shows that the North [intends] to free the negroes and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South." "Do you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter?" a Georgia secessionist asked nonslaveholders. If Georgia remained in a Union "ruled by Lincoln and his crew . . . in TEN years or less our CHILDREN will be the slaves of negroes." To defend their wives and daughters, presumably, yeoman whites therefore joined planters in "rallying to the standard of Liberty and Equality for white men" against "our Abolition enemies who are pledged to prostrate the white freemen of the South down to equality with the Negroes." Most southern whites could agree, according to secessionists, that "democratic liberty exists solely because we have black slaves" whose presence "promotes equality among the free." Hence "freedom is not possible without slavery."
This Orwellian definition of liberty as slavery provoked ridicule north of the Potomac. For disunionists to compare themselves to the Revolutionary fathers "is a libel upon the whole character and conduct of the men of '76," declared William Cullen Bryant's New York Evening Post. "The founders fought "to establish the rights of man . . . and principles of universal liberty." The South was rebelling "not in the interest of general humanity, but of a domestic despotism. . . . Their motto is not liberty, but slavery." Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence spoke for "Natural Rights against Established Instituions," added the New York Tribune, while "Mr. Jeff. Davis's caricature thereof is made in the interest of an unjust, outgrown, decaying Institution against the apprehended encroachments of Natural Human Rights." It was, in short, not a revolution for liberty, but a counterrevolution "reversing the wheels of progress . . . to hurl everything backward into deepest darkness . . . despotism and oppression."
Without assenting to the rhetoric of this analysis, a good many disunionists in effect endorsed its substance. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were wrong if they meant to include Negroes among "all men," said Alexander Stephens after he had become the vice president of the Confederacy. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." Black Republicans were the real revolutionaries. They subscribed to "tenets as radical and revolutionary" as those of the abolitionists, declared a New Orleans newspaper. Therefore it was "an abuse of language" to call secession a revolution, said Jefferson Davis. We left the Union "to save ourselves from a revolution" that threatened to make "property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless." In 1861 the Confederate secretary of state advised foreign governments that southern states had formed a new nation "to preserve their old instituions" from "a revolution [that] threatened to destroy their social system."
This is the language of counterrevolution. But in one respect the Confederacy departed from the classic pattern of the genre. Most counterrevolutions seek to restore the ancien regimé. The counterrevolutions of 1861 made their move before the revolutionaries had done anything--indeed, several months before Lincoln even took office. In this regard, secession fit the model of "preemptive counterrevolution" developed by historian Arno Mayer. Rather than trying to restore the old order, a preemptive counterrevolution strikes first to protect the status quo before the revolutionary threat can materialize. "Conjuring up the dangers of leaving revolutionaries the time to prepare their forces and plans for an assault on their terms," writes Mayer, "counterrevolutionary leaders urge a preemptive thrust." To mobilize support for it, they "intentionally exaggerate the magnitude and imminence of the revolutionary threat."
Though Mayer was writing about Europe in the twentieth century, his words also describe the immediate secessionists of 1860. They exaggerated the Republican threat and urged preemptive action to forestall the dangers they conjured up. The South could not afford to wait for an "overt act" by Lincoln against southern rights, they insisted. "If I find a coiled rattlesnake in my path," asked and Alabama editor, "do I wait for his 'overt act' or do I smite him in his coil?"
MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle.
[...]
Politico reported Friday that Olbermann had donated $2,400 each to Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and to Kentucky Senate contender Jack Conway. While NBC News policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.
In a statement earlier Friday, Olbermann defended his donation, saying, "I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."
Griffin's statement underscores that it was Olbermann's failure to obtain approval, and not the actual political donations, that prompted the suspension.
[...]
I like Keith. He's the fire and brimstone to Maddow's calm sanity. Sure, he's 50% show and rhetoric, but what he says is at least based on facts. What pisses me off the most is Fox's parent company donated millions of dollars to Republicans and nobody raised a fuss, but this guy is fired for donating less than $10,000. Oh, and no fewer than 30 Fox News personalities "endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations" during the elections. I'd understand this if he was a reporter, but he's not a reporter. He's a pundit. I'd be surprised if he didn't give money. I'm really curious to see how conservatives are going to explain this with their liberal media conspiracy delusions.
The only way MSNBC can redeem itself in my eyes is if they have Cenk Uygur replace him, who's filled in for Keith before. He has Maddow's intelligence and Olbermann's passion. He would be perfect.
Olbermann made MSNBC, and he deserves better. I'm really going to miss his Special Comments. Here's a few of my favorites.
Doris Kearnes Goodwin made a great point in the video from the last post. Republicans winning elections nationwide does not mean there's some sort of new conservative movement, because two years ago with Obama's inauguration we thought there was some new progressive movement as well. All it means is that people are pissed off, both parties suck, and they just want somebody to do something.
Here's Cenk Uygur's response to election night. It starts off brilliant, and then slowly dissolves almost into incoherent rant, which is certainly forgivable considering the circumstances.
Liberals are pissed off because Democrats are not a liberal party. They are a moderate party. I will always love Barack Obama and I will follow him to the grave, but the man needs to grow a pair and learn how to play politics. Dems had all the ammunition they could've asked for this election cycle, and they didn't use any of it. It seems like the only people in Washington who actually seem to care about accomplishing things are Obama and about five or six specific congressmen, at most. Every other person is exactly how Cenk described - corrupt as shit. If they're not corrupt, then they know enough to keep their heads down because the people who are corrupt will destroy them.
We need unapologetic progressives - liberals with teeth, not smirking hipsters carrying ironic signs with clever slogans.
A "Progressive Party"!
We don't need to win. But we need to fight, and without fear or apology. And let us never echo the nonsensical rhetoric we're currently hearing on all sides. Let us never try to recreate a utopian America that never existed in the first place. Let's take an honest inventory of the actual (not imagined) problems our country is currently facing and then take real action.
Let's start a genuine grass-roots movement, and refuse to allow it to be hijacked by corporate interests.
Feingold/Kucinich 2012!
Let's do this.
I have mixed feelings about it. Splitting the vote of a party is always going to bring victory to that party's opponents. And Republicans have miraculously avoided that so far with the Tea Party, by simply having Tea Party candidates run as Republicans. I really doubt this will actually happen. But I still hope it does. At this point, I'm about ready to throw my hands up and write in "Psyduck" at the polls just for shits and giggles. How can things get any worse? The American people are too fucking dumb to realize when they're being lied to, and they're just going to keep voting Republican as long as Democrats continue to play the moderate card.
Plus, the internet has proven in the last few years that it can really be a powerful tool for starting amazing things. 4chan was responsible for the backlash against Scientology. And if there was ever such a thing we could call 'the crossroads of the internet,' it is reddit. The idea for the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear originated on Reddit. That's how Colbert got the idea. If liberalism is going to have an actual voice in America, it's not going to come from sell outs and corrupt shitheads in the media, such as with the Tea Party. If it's going to happen, it's going to come from the internet.
But let's be realistic. This isn't happening. In fact, I'm pretty sure everyone's going to forget about this in a week. I'm convinced that America is too far gone. Any chance of a third party arising is going to be immediately squashed by the people with money. The reason why more than two parties were able to exist in the first half of the 19th century was because the system wasn't corrupt. Any no name could run - Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett, Abraham Lincoln - and every one of them could have a fair shot if they were smart enough. Money doesn't let that happen anymore. Let's face it. We're fucked. We will forever be fucked. The only thing that's going to loosen corporate power's stranglehold on our government is another Theodore Roosevelt. I almost wish I believed in a god so I could pray and convince myself I'm not entirely powerless. I'm just going to swallow my pride and continue voting Democrat. If I'm going to get fucked in the ass, at least Democrats will be gentle about it.
One thing I will always respect about the Civil War generation is that they waded through the worst horrors imaginable, and yet still managed to hold onto their humanity. This is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read.
July the 14th, 1861
Washington D.C.
My very dear Sarah:
The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.
Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure—and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me. Not my will, but thine O God, be done. If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in, the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.
But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows—when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children—is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country?
I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death—and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country, and thee.
I have sought most closely and diligently, and often in my breast, for a wrong motive in thus hazarding the happiness of those I loved and I could not find one. A pure love of my country and of the principles have often advocated before the people and "the name of honor that I love more than I fear death" have called upon me, and I have obeyed.
Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.
The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when God willing, we might still have lived and loved together and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me—perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar—that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name.
Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm. But I cannot. I must watch you from the spirit land and hover near you, while you buffet the storms with your precious little freight, and wait with sad patience till we meet to part no more.
But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the garish day and in the darkest night—amidst your happiest scenes and gloomiest hours—always, always; and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; or the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.
Sarah, do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for me, for we shall meet again.
As for my little boys, they will grow as I have done, and never know a father's love and care. Little Willie is too young to remember me long, and my blue-eyed Edgar will keep my frolics with him among the dimmest memories of his childhood. Sarah, I have unlimited confidence in your maternal care and your development of their characters. Tell my two mothers his and hers I call God's blessing upon them. O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children.
Gosh, this was a fun election season. And by "fun," I mean I want to put a gun in my mouth. I should be surprised at the results. I want to be. But I'm not, and I think that says a lot about the state our country is in. It's like America doesn't have a memory span that lasts over a couple months. Doesn't anyone fucking remember the Bush years? Do they honestly think Republicans have changed?
Remember when this exact same thing happened in 1994, and the Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton for shits and giggles? Remember how they harassed him, and refused to confirm as many judges as they could? Remember how they made it clear that they'd rather shut down the government than let a president who's a democrat succeed? The shit's about to get much, much worse. Those were normal Republicans. Now Congress is filled with a bunch of extremists and conspiracy theorists. Future generations are going to look back and really wonder what the fuck we were thinking.
Check out the Republican who won Illinois.
Christ. Just look at that guy. He spent this election cycle embellishing his military career and lying about being a teacher. Poor Wisconsin lost progressive hero Russ Feingold to a climate change-denying, tea partying millionaire. My former hero Alan Grayson lost by 20 points, but I stopped respecting that asshole after he Breitbart'ed some footage in a campaign ad and compared his opponent to the fucking Taliban. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi lost her job too. John Boehner is the god damn Speaker of the House.Edit: I just realized Dems weren't able to do anything meaningful about DADT before this election. Kiss that goodbye too.
It could've been a lot worse though. Republicans didn't get the Senate. And there's really only two possible outcomes to this: either Republicans stay true to their word and fix the deficit, or they fail utterly. Either outcome will be good for the country. I've already seen whispering among Republican candidates about potential "investigations" into Democrats or the Obama administration, so watching them chase shadows instead of governing should be very entertaining. I guess there's not really any point to this post other than to vent my frustration at how fucking stupid our country is. Also, I really wish this ad would've been aired on every channel in every state for the last six months.
