NM

[real chili 83]

I'll ask my son works in Des Moines yes the one that went to ISU

F or J?

[Newsdreams]

F or J?

F, J lives in MKE at least until February 2018

[Newsdreams]

Sew, you're Burton's dad, hey?

Nope, S had graduated by the time Burton transferred.

[real chili 83]

 Driving  by Ames right now .  Smells like  manure

[Spotcheck Billy]

How 'bout this eclipse?

https://www.youtube.com/v/Qx9SJpE7Ifg

[Newsdreams]

Driving  by Ames right now .  Smells like  manure

F says BBQ Somkey D's or Jethro's
For steak as per Sultan 801 Chophouse

[GooooMarquette]

So is anyone in the path of totality? Glow Jr. Is. He went down to Nashville to stay with my folks.

My wife was visiting our daughter in Columbia, MO.  They said the totality was amazing.  They also had perfect timing - it was clear as the moon was obscuring the sun more and more and during the totality...then they got storms a little while later. 

[Herman Cain]

These stainless steel insulated cups are really great in the summer.  The ice stays in there for a long time.

[Newsdreams]

Maybe late but I'll leave this here:
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/

[Herman Cain]

Maybe late but I'll leave this here:
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/

I might not be a free man today if it weren't for the Confederates . This is because they were stupid and arrogant enough to start a war they could not win . The North came in kicked butt and freed my ancestors. For all we know, Slavery could have stayed as an institution for a much longer time if there was no war.   So , yes Robert E Lee and the like were traitors and certainly no friend of the black man ,but in my way of looking at life, they did me a favor by creating a circumstance that directly led to freedom . 

[fjm]

No eclipse here in Paris.

Ps DUKES! What the heck happened there? That's easily top 3 fav bars in Milwaukee and now we are shooting people outside of it?

[keefe]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[keefe]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

Keefe we all know you are a god among mortals.  We can all just aspire to be you.

[keefe]

https://www.youtube.com/v/Qx9SJpE7Ifg

Saw Zappa while at Marquette. Sublime.

https://www.youtube.com/v/MQvtIgniCsE

[keefe]

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? 

[GGGG]

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? 

keefe, unlike you, I prefer to keep my charitable and personal interests to myself.  Scoop doesn't need more pompous braggarts than it already has.

If that answer doesn't satisfy you...well tough sh*t. 

[brewcity77]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

Well said.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

This is where in my opinion you go off the rails. 

It is well and good that you see and fight injustice elsewhere in the world.  I applaud you for it.  What is curious to me is that you seem to overlook, if not actively attempt to diminish, what the current public discourse is about.

It isn't about statues per se, though the white supremacists would like to frame the discussion that way.  It is about the message that those statues were intended to send when they were erected, and the same message the alt-right clings to today.  The message that blacks may have been freed, but they will still be lynched.  That they may be separate, but they will never be equal.  That the law may say they have the right to vote, but we'll do everything in our measure to prevent it.  That the white man is, and always will be superior.  They didn't raise statues to Forrest because he was such a fine cavalry commander.

Now the alt-right clings to that message, the message that blacks are 3/5th of a person, the message that the glorifying statues of Davis, Lee, and Jackson were intended to convey.  We have a President that pretends that white supremacists beating a black man with pipes and Nazis shouting about exterminating Jews are on the same moral footing as those that oppose them.

This isn't even about slavery, as that question was settled long ago.  You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees with your stance on slavery.

It's about racism.

You can enjoy Faulkner's prose, Lee's ability as a field General, and even promulgate the obviously incorrect idea that we'd be a British colony today if it weren't for South Carolina.  But to use these as excuses to poo-pooh and dismiss the rise of white nationalism, in large part experiencing a resurgence thanks in part to a President that condones it, as inconsequential is ignoble.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Keefe, there are millions of injustices in this world. I am confident that the vast majority of scoopers dedicate a significant portion of their time and funds to help right a fraction of the many injustices that plague humanity. No one can dedicate time and funds to every injustice. It's impossible. But that doesn't mean that those who choose to spend their time on other worthy causes can't have an opinion on a topic.

Fair or not, for many the confederacy and its many representations have become a symbol of hate and inequality....and not just for those who want to remove the symbols but also the ones who want to preserve them. One only has to look at Charlottesville to see that. Those protesters weren't chanting about states rights, honoring the dead, or Robert E Lee's contributions to the military curriculum. They were messages of hate and violence and some even brought symbols of Nazism in support. As I said earlier, I personally am for the statue staying up because I think its important to educate on the failings of our past. But I have no problem with others using their free speech to ask that these symbols of hate (for many) are removed.

I also don't care if we label the confederates traitors or not. If they weren't traitors, than they were enemy combatants who went to war with the United States of America for many reasons, not the least of which was the preservation of slavery. For me, we should educate ourselves and learn about the confederacy (which is why I am fine with the statue) but we should not honor it (which is why I was for changing the name of the park).

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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]"

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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]"

[Benny B]

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]"

Who cares whether or not the confederate states had the right to leave, they didn't have the right to take up arms against the United States.

-or-

There have been two revolutionary wars in the history of this country... in the first, the rebels won; in the second, they lost.  You think that had we had lost the first one that merry old England would have let us erect statues of Washington, Jefferson, and all of the other traitors to the crown?  Hell no.  So all y'all wafflehousers best be thankful that we yankees tolerated your ignorance, insolence, insubordination and insidiousness this long.