Kolek planning to go pro
I'll ask my son works in Des Moines yes the one that went to ISU
F or J?
Sew, you're Burton's dad, hey?
How 'bout this eclipse?
Driving by Ames right now . Smells like manure
So is anyone in the path of totality? Glow Jr. Is. He went down to Nashville to stay with my folks.
Maybe late but I'll leave this here:http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/
Zeitgeist is immutable. What seems obvious today might not have been as self-evident in the swirl of the cataclysm.Whether he fully realized it or not, Faulkner in his world-class art and in his opinions drew from the well of traditional Southern impulses. He even calls down the old truth that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, that liberty is not a gift but only for those who have the character to get and keep it, “Which is exactly what we did, in those old days.” John Taylor of Caroline, John C. Calhoun, and Robert E. Lee would know at once exactly what he meant. William Faulkner was not only a conservative Southerner, he believed that it was not such bad thing to be.I believe it is a natural progression for the thought police to eventually turn their sites on the genius of Faulkner who celebrates the South and the Cause.
And to those white males of Scoop, who are so grievously offended by the stain of slavery in the cavalcade of American history, I ask what are you doing to fight slavery that continues unabated in an unjust world? You quibble about statues and condemn men from a different age. But if slavery is really a matter of genuine concern and not parlor talk then you can fight against the enslavement of millions that is happening today. Some live by words. Others live by doing.
Faulker was an artist who reflected his times. There is no reason to diminish that work because of it.And you seem to be making the mistake that many others have made. What wasn't "self-evident" at the time of Calhoun? That slavery was evil and wrong? Throughout the 1800s there were many monumental steps that lead to the abolition of slavery in the western world. The southern United States was one of two places in the western world that hung onto slavery into the 1860s. (The other was Brazil.) This wasn't really that complex an issue. I know. We only wish we could be like you keefe. I mean, Scoop would be unbearable due to the pomposity, but at least we'd all claim we are doing something right?
No one questioned the morality of slavery. I think even Edward Rutledge knew that the enslavement of other humans was morally reprehensible. But Rutledge held the northern colonies hostage in exchange for a pass on the slavery question. And at the time, even Abigail Adams said that subordinating the issue to the more pressing matter of the UDI was a necessary compromise for a greater good. But in all of this I have not ever mentioned slavery. The central point of my narrative is that the states did have the right to withdraw from the Union as provided for under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles established the states as sovereign entities with certain and definite rights. The subsequent Constitutional Convention broadened the federal powers but never eliminated many of the prescribed rights of the individual states. And so, if the states were exercising their mandated right to leave the Union how could the citizens of those sovereign states be committing treason?Lincoln did not prevent the secessionist states from exercising their right to leave the Union. In fact, he physically forced them back into the Union through overwhelming military force. Frankly, I am glad that he preserved the Union and ended the abomination of slavery. As one of the most self-righteous posters here, Sultan, I guess you would immediately detect the robust aroma of hubris if not pretentious conceit.But once more you avoid the question - if you are so terribly upset by slavery what have you done to combat that awful institution? As I have said, I have taken time out of my life to fly essential supplies from Europe into the refugee camps in the Horn of Africa (where my sister and her husband volunteer as doctors through Médecins Sans Frontières) and helped with the recovery and reintegration of Nepali children who were sold into horrible lives of the most despicable forms of servitude. If you want to consider that pompous then so be it. Frankly, I believe it is what my Anglican faith calls finding ways to serve. People can thunder and rage at injustice but my rejoinder has always been to ask what one has done about it?I have colleagues who are actively involved in volunteer cyber work aimed at shutting down human trafficking in Seattle. Their work was instrumental in shutting down a site that promoted prostitution here in Seattle. To me, that is active engagement in fighting slavery. People can waste their time on statues but that is ridiculous when there is real injustice in the world. One can pontificate about 200 year old injustice but I would prefer that the outraged channel all that strident militancy into something that actually makes a difference in the world. It is one thing to scream and yell at the TV. It quite yet another to get out of the Lazy Boy and actually do something.
https://www.youtube.com/v/Qx9SJpE7Ifg
Keefe we all know you are a god among mortals. We can all just aspire to be you.
Again, you engage in petulant personal attack rather than answer the question: Since you are so filled with seething rage against the abomination that is human subjugation what are you doing to fight it? You mentioned that slavery only existed in two places in the 1860 western world. Fact is, human subjugation continues throughout the world, including in your state. You rage about statues celebrating slavery. What are you doing to fight slavery happening in your very own back yard?
I prefer to keep my charitable and personal interests to myself. Scoop doesn't need more pompous braggarts than it already has.
I've generally found people do good deeds for two reasons. It's either to help others or to help themself. The former tend to do their good deeds and leave it at that. The latter tend to do their good deeds and go on to brag about them and use them to feel superior to others.Further, not every individual can combat every ill in the world. I think most people are best suited finding what they really care about changing and taking actions where they are capable, whether that's through financial contribution or direct action. You can't save the entire world and right all wrongs alone, but if we all do our part, hopefully we will eventually get there.
author=keefe link=topic=54409.msg943584#msg943584 date=1503418816] People can waste their time on statues but that is ridiculous when there is real injustice in the world.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
But in all of this I have not ever mentioned slavery. The central point of my narrative is that the states did have the right to withdraw from the Union as provided for under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles established the states as sovereign entities with certain and definite rights. The subsequent Constitutional Convention broadened the federal powers but never eliminated many of the prescribed rights of the individual states. And so, if the states were exercising their mandated right to leave the Union how could the citizens of those sovereign states be committing treason?
Except, the Articles were and are no longer in effect. The Constitution completely supersedes the Articles. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits secession as it explicitly states the United States is "a perpetual union." The secession question is answered here:"The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[55] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[56] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[55] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[57] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[58] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[56][59]"
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.