We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, April 25. 2014
My pic above is Newport, RI. Nice little town in the most corrupt mob-union state in the US.
Mark Twain on dueling
Nutrition should be considered folklore
Limbaugh Back After Week Off for Second Cochlear Implant
Ladies' Home Journal to End 130-Year Run as Regular Magazine
at Midnight: The Life and Poetry of George Herbert* - See more at:
Student Goverment Votes to Change Oppresive, Racist ‘Utah Man’ Fight Song
The most interesting dilemmas are moral dilemmas.
The Dutch and their Moroccans
Asian-Americans, affirmative action, and the
Russia, India, China planning epic $30 Billion Oil Pipeline that could shift the Geopolitical balance
Guess Who Makes More Than Bankers: Bank Regulators
How did Harry Reid get so rich?
Even the WaPo: Keystone XL’s continued delay is absurd
SEAN HANNITY Responds to Cliven Bundy’s “Beyond Repugnant, Beyond Despicable” Racist Comments
Al Gore Is Not Giving Up
Small Businesses Figure Out How to Cope With Obamacare
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
E-Cigs: Comstock Lives!
Wilders: Multi-Culti Uber Alles!
Michigan: "UPDATE: It’s interesting to note that Asian-Americans are not mentioned even once in any of the five opinions in today’s ruling (which include over 100 pages of combined text)." See previous comment.
Enviros: SHUT UP, they argue.
KXLdelay: Not absurd; that's where the big donors are.
Bundy: I note that no-one has rebutted his remarks. Vilification is not an argument (see ENVIROS).
AlGore Not Giving Up: Why would he break his own rice bowl?
My husband and I think the teacher should have told the students why she shouldn’t have led them in prayer. He wants to press this issue, while I feel as long as we let our child know what’s right and wrong, we should let this go and accept this is part of where we live. Our child will be in this school for several more years. We did tell a few acquaintances about this and they said “people like us” were ruining the community of faith. Sometimes, I feel like I’m being a coward not standing up for religious tolerance.
These two are such liars. They've branded themselves as Crusading Atheists, and in true narcissistic fashion, are stars of their own movie. They're not worried about their daughter, their daughter is part of the Drama (playing the role of Informant). Dad wants' to be noticed so he insists on pushing the issue in school, she's worried about whether she appears as "tolerant" or not, they tell all their friends about what they've done and they write to Dear Prudence, which is published in Slate and 200 newspapers.
Ladies' Home Journal to End 130-Year Run as Regular Magazine.
Edward Bok was editor of the Ladies' Home Journal for 30 years. He tells his story in his autobiography, The Americanization of Edward Bok. Edward Bok started off poor. He left school at an early age to help support his family. By virtue of his own intelligence- and more important his own initiative- he rose in life.
There are many other stories from 19th century America of a poor boy who, though he had to leave school at an early age to help support his family, through intelligence and initiative, rose to a high position in life. One example is The Bobbin Boy or, How Nat Got His learning. This is a biography of Nathaniel P. Banks, who though he left school at age 14 to work in a textile mill, became Governor of Massachusetts a Civil War General, and a US Congressman for 18 years.
Here is an example of Bok's initiative.
One day it occurred to him to test the accuracy of the biographies he was reading. James A. Garfield was then spoken of for the presidency; Edward wondered whether it was true that the man who was likely to be President of the United States had once been a boy on the tow-path, and with a simple directness characteristic of his Dutch training, wrote to General Garfield, asking whether the boyhood episode was true, and explaining why he asked. Of course any public man, no matter how large his correspondence, is pleased to receive an earnest letter from an information-seeking boy. General Garfield answered warmly and fully. Edward showed the letter to his father, who told the boy that it was valuable and he should keep it. This was a new idea. He followed it further: if one such letter was valuable, how much more valuable would be a hundred! If General Garfield answered him, would not other famous men? Why not begin a collection of autograph letters? Everybody collected something.
Edward had collected postage-stamps, and the hobby had, incidentally, helped him wonderfully in his study of geography. Why should not autograph letters from famous persons be of equal service in his struggle for self-education? Not simple autographs—they were meaningless; but actual letters which might tell him something useful. It never occurred to the boy that these men might not answer him.
So he took his Encyclopedia—its trustworthiness now established in his mind by General Garfield's letter—and began to study the lives of successful men and women. Then, with boyish frankness, he wrote on some mooted question in one famous person's life; he asked about the date of some important event in another's, not given in the Encyclopedia; or he asked one man why he did this or why some other man did that.
Most interesting were, of course, the replies. Thus General Grant sketched on an improvised map the exact spot where General Lee surrendered to him; Longfellow told him how he came to write "Excelsior"; Whittier told the story of "The Barefoot Boy"; Tennyson wrote out a stanza or two of "The Brook," upon condition that Edward would not again use the word "awful," which the poet said "is slang for 'very,'" and "I hate slang."
One day the boy received a letter from the Confederate general Jubal A. Early, giving the real reason why he burned Chambersburg. A friend visiting Edward's father, happening to see the letter, recognized in it a hitherto-missing bit of history, and suggested that it be published in the New York Tribune. The letter attracted wide attention and provoked national discussion.
When still an adolescent, Banks continued to study while a textile mill worker, and trained himself to become an orator. His speaking skills led to his political career.
In 19th Century America, Banks and Bok didn't spend their time crying about INEQUALITY. They rose through their own initiative.
What has changed in American society to impede such rising from the poor? Formal education has become much more important. The current financing of tertiary education, where students take out loans so that they can supported bloated college administrations, also hurts the poor- as they are more likely to need loans than the better off.
A further point is that formal education, especially of the Politically Correct mode of today, tends to squash individual initiative.
[PC nonsense is not the only way in which formal education impedes individual initiative. Some 4 decades ago, my father made the point that all the increasing formal education requirements stifled individual initiative. My father, while, highly educated, had transformed his childhood hobby into his career. Had he been subjected to onerous study requirements as a child, he would not have had the time to develop his hobby.]
But if you are poor in the US, and are not interested in learning, formal education ultimately will not assist you in bettering yourself. That is the INEQUALITY which the libs ignore.
As expected, it is the fear that the Left will use those words to smear everyone on the Right that really concerns Hannity.
My opinion is this was Hannity boilerplate to protect his creds and retain his advertisers. He was getting out in front of it before the Left flamed him over covering the Bundy BLM standoff. I think it is obvious that Hannity is very afraid of the Left.
I think it would have been better to just ignore Bundy but I guess it is just too tempting to beat up on someone who doesn't live in the limelight.
The standoff was funny while it pitted an inept government against some guy on horseback. But Bundy turns out to be a racist asshat -- what kind of stone cold moron says "the Negro"? If the government does a ruby ridge on him, well, no big loss.
Regarding Bundy - the media showed little interest in this story until Bundy made his racist remarks.
I've heard the remarks. I actually think he was trying to say something I agree with - that public assistance removes initiative and makes you dependent on the state, not unlike the slaves were dependent on their masters for their livelihood - but did it in such an incoherent and ham-handed way he appears terribly racist. That's unfortunate for him.
Even so, if I make the extreme leap of assuming Bundy is a truly awful RACIST, he still gets to have the same rights and protections as a non-racist.
Separating the rightness of his cause, and I am 100% behind him on, from the stupidity of his statements is easy to do.
But the leftist media won't have it.
Of course, they still haven't turned out Harry Reid and his stupidity - but they are on the same side.
My point in all this is easily made if you make the assumption that Bundy had come out of the closet, rather than made a racist commentary. The people supporting his cause wouldn't have disappeared, because they are there to stop the government dictating to individuals.
On the other hand, the press would have continued to ignore the issue, except to possibly laugh at Bundy's supporters for supporting a gay man, assuming the cause he is fighting and his personal preferences are one in the same.
They are not.
Bulldog, you're spot on. Bundy's comments have some basis in reality; they are also irrelevant to his cause, but will be used, wrongly, against the Tea Party, Bundy's supporters, and other foes of federal overreach. I agree Hannity should have just avoided the issue, but now the Dems have some good spin for this fall.
I've said for a long time: it's easy to be on the left. After all, one can always meet exceed tenuous and mutable standards. The right cannot exhibit any human frailty without being excoriated by the left and press, and abandoned by the right.
The Real Pipeline Issue
Living in MT means I have a passion for the open spaces, the unbuilt, and untrammeled spaces that are still open and not under government flag (US Forest Service, US Park Service, BLM, etc.) though I truly appreciate the job these folks do--most of the wide expansive visuals are not under government control. Those wide open empty spaces that we all love.
I believe that the real issue behind the resistance to the Keystone pipeline, is not about the pipeline itself, but rather the true concerns is that the MBA (Master BUilders Association) and it's Arizona mafia are right behind the pipeline. The construction industry is wetting their panties to get into these areas and build subdivisions--useless destruction of something we all love. You see--the jobs that will be provided during construction is not the same number of jobs that will be provided for maintaining the pipeline. IF the REPUBLICANS would promise that they will not come in and build subdivisions I believe the line would go through immediately. Except of course for the fact that the MBA is one of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party--my o my what wicked webs we weave. The dems want the contributions from the MBA and all the other contratactors, but they cannot silence their contingent who are opposed to the unnecessary development of wild lands. Sooo . . . if we could get the Dems to agree to acknowledge the real issue, and if we could get the Reps to do the same--we might just move forward and provide a few good jobs for a few people. BUT THEN AGAIN, if what you believe is the next step in your save Mexico program is to build entire new subdivisions and develop the empty areas for cheap (and I mean really cheap) subdivision housing, well then we aren''t gonna get anywhere.