I have had it with two-bit politicians of patriotic pandering using the flag, parenthood, the family, eagles, snakes on a flag (not in a plane), bloody trees, liberty hats (have they stolen that one yet?), flintlocks and silly hats and lacy pirates shirts to inflame the patriotic passion of the angry electorate. Now we are into floundering with the 'Fadders' more than ever and I'm sick of it all.

The men of America known as The Founding Fathers were complex men and a product of their times. They were readers of the Bible and of The Enlightenment. Think about that sentence for a minute.

They were traditionalists and the 'modern thinkers' for their times. They read and wrote voraciously and some of their writings did question some of their decisions later on. If you read into the deeper parts of the making of our great documents that helped create this nation, you will find a complex history of committees, colonial factions and individuals who held up or pushed certain things over others.

Some of these push and shove moves were philisophical, some moral, some colony interests over federal interests, some were even personal. What really burns me is that these  "modern" politicians now a days show less depth of knowledge in American History than many of us here and then we all argue the point they are 'contorting' to make (when ever I see them use the 'fadders' I know there ain't no point other than a political posturing point).

Any time the Founding Fathers come out of a politican's mouth then ya best just get the shovel out and clean the historic barnyard cause "they be slingin' heavy weapons of patriotic pulp fiction for a vote".

I am not just talking Sarah and Michele here peeps, I am talking Diests vs Christians, States vs Feds, Union vs Rebels, individulalists vs society, rich vs poor and on and on and on...

Every one wants a piece of the 'Fadders' but no one wants to spend more time learning about them. I like when I learn something new about these men, it makes them more human and less of a myth. what I don't like is when some manipulator of facts wants to "interpret" for me what these guys meant or should have meant with less then truthful historic assertions.

I am still learning about the Founding Dudes, scholars are still learning and arguing about the these Great Guys of Goodess and Freedom.

(Oh oh Dog, are you funnin' with the Fathers of our country?) Hell yeah, the're just humans that did many good things and made some mistakes, I don't do political worship too well even for the old dudes of America. After all, I read a lot of history and have a lot more to read before I understand it all. You all should too!

I love reading and learning more about the history of our Country. Looking at our past helps me to see why the political strife is what it is today.

What really angers me a little is to see people trying to debate and discuss politics and what America is with just basic High School history and nothing more. This pervasive laziness of history is what creates a lot of misunderstanding, anger and out right bat $hit craziness. What is it with people who want to debate and discuss issues and politics in America without an in depth knowledge of what went on in our past?

Some of the back and forth is about the definition of what America is, "we're a Republic, no we're a Democracy, no we are a Federation, no we are a Confederacy of States, we are one Nation under god that is inseperable, states rights means secession is a reasonable thing and noble thing".

In the beginning Nationhood was not even brought up, Nationalism was not even a part of the process. The word 'nation' was even stricken from the Declaration of Independence. Danial Boorstin, a noted historian, describes that the Declaration of Independence had "created not one nation but thirteen".

The resolution put forth by the Continental Congress on July 7, 1776 states " these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." during the earliest part of our Country, each colony and then state, created its own armies and navies, its own money and banks, its own laws about native Americans in their particular state, they created their own taxes and levies and court systems. Each citizen saw themselves as people of Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Delaware and participants of their state first and as citizens of America second. Each state had so many differences that it was important that each had different laws and ways of doing things.

The word "Nation" does not even appear anywhere in the Constitution. The very word 'Federal' comes from the Latin word 'foedus' and describes a relationship based on a 'good faith' between our States. Back then there was no real support or interest for America as "one Nation under god". There was a constant back and forth on what took precidence, state government or Federal government. We are still fighting that issue today and it has never really gone away in the discussion and debate.

The idea and ideal of a Republican government was not so cut and dried back then. There were many who believed that a country so large and growing as ours could not support the idea of a Republic. The French philosopher Montesquieu considered that a Republic can only work well in a limited territory and would become too unwieldy in anything larger than a small area of geography. Some Founding Fathers even thought that some States were already too large to have a Republic that would or could work well within its size.

Because of these differences in outlook and the differences in each states social and economic structure, secession was talked about a lot, even before the Civil War secession was a part of the political debate. The first spark of secession was not about slavery and North against South but cropped up between West and East, The Whiskey Rebellion was about taxation without representation. The dreaded Whiskey Tax had Western Pennsylvania farmers up in arms. By August of 1794, many of these Western farmers were ready for war against the Easterners and the Federal government. In October, Federal troops literally invaded Pittsburgh Pennsylvaina to put down this rise to war. The leaders of this Whiskey Rebellion escaped to Spanish Louisiana and the threat of secession was soon over.

In 1812, New Englanders were talking secession over the war against Great Britain. They were angry over what they called "Madison's War" and the Louisiana Purchase and they said that these two things were a danger to the Republic. So again, the North was angry and ready to succeed from the Union of United States.

The Union of these "United States of America" was not as strong back then as many Americans now believe. Lincoln was really the president that helped create the notion that 'the Union of the United States is one Nation'. His idea that we cannot seperate into littl Nations was an important step in creating what we are today, a stronger Nation. He helped infuse the idea and ideal that we are a Nation and can never go back.

The strife between states and the Federal government was and still is what creates political strife in our Nation. Do we want to keep and protect our Nation or do we want to go back to the notion that we are 50 different Nations that are just tied by a union of faith? This is my question to all Americans. it is not an easy question but one we all need to ask ourselves everyday.

New Edition Of "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" & "Tom Sawyer" Removes Mark Twain's "Offensive" Words
Should we be editing era period books?

What might the long term results be? Our history as a society rests with our authors and storytellers. It would seem to me, if we edit out the history we are not comfortable with, we may be doomed to repeat it. Do we want to go the way of sanitizing our social history?

JMO

Maddad

From time to time I read that some folks think Americans had more morality than now. The constant references to times gone by that were better, simpler and easier with more moral principles guiding us is never ending. In fact this moral myth is not new. From the very begining of our country the moral argument continues to pop up when ever we, as a nation feel unhappy or unsafe, so why do some think there was this shiny moral place in time that we should try to go back to?

As a reader of history beyond the education they slough off on us in High School, I have looked to find this perfect moral time period and for the life of me I don't see it, why, I am I blind, am I reading the wrong books or authors?

I just don't get it, when did we own more morality in our history? When were we better and more moral Americans?

When did we as a Nation not have problems with the economy, violence, social unrest, rascism, class warfare, problems within our educational system, the rich cheating the poor, power that corrupts a person, anger at others, neighbors killing neighbors, coveting what others have, problems with alcohol and drugs, children harming children?

When did we have this American Dream? And if there is was when, how did we lose it?

We all have fears, those little and big things that twist our minds into knots of writhing emotional snakes. Snakes, spiders, the man who would steal your child, your possessions and your love, the 'guvmint' intruders banging on the door at night, the black helicopters sweeping in to annihilate the crowd, the tax man that is sitting in his office looking over your private lives, the dog down the street getting out and impregnating your little FIFI. OHHH scary stuff dudes and dudettes. I am shivering as I write this all down. I even closed the drapes and took the phone off the hook and hid it in the closet.

We have had many fearful times in American. The Civil War where we could have ended up killing our brother, uncle or even father and the separation of our country into little fiefdoms of the same people with the same dreams and aspirations. The crash where big wigs jumped from windows because they knew they had caused this mess with their financial shenanigans. The Depression, where we thought we would be forever. WWW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, you name it we have been through it.

"Wait Dog 911 was different!"

Really, the Whiskey Rebellion, 1812, Fort Sumpter, Harpers Ferry, Pearl Harbor, Berlin Wall, Cuban Missle Crisis, THE BOMB, the oil crisis during Carter, the cyclical recessions during many presidents, McCarthy and Hollywood, the RED scare, The green environmental zombie bombers, The Manson Family, Jim Jones, religious zealots with guns and money. The act of 911 was not just about killing a number of Americans, crashing planes and hitting buildings or a field of grass.

"What Dog, you're nuts, that is exactly what it was about!"

If you do really read history and not just peruse it for attack points then you know we have conquered fears and the actions those fears have produced. We are not on some new 21st century road here, we are on the same road we have been traveling since our inception. The dangerous road of life, country and pursuits that may not be the pursuits of others, here and abroad.

The vitriol we spew is fear, fear of others, fear of life out of our control and just plain likin' to stir the damn fear pot.

"but Dog I see you do it too!"

Yeah, I am human baby, I do it too. But here may be the difference in us. I know and think about what I am doing and I try to do it will some sense of what the real fears are vs the fake fears of poltical talking drones, TV mouth masturbators, money makin' tycoons, religious fire eaters and pusillanimous partisans.

"Now wait right there Dog, your partisan!"

Gee, tell me something I don't know here. I came from a pack, a pack of Democrats that goes a long way back. I come from a pack of Nativists from before this was the United States of America. I come from packs of Swedes, Irish, Scots, French, Germans, two races and all the major religions with all many minor sects thrown in for good measure.. I am a damn melting pot!

I am proud and enjoy the status the packs gives me, so do you!

There is always someone who will put fear in you, it may be deliberate, it may be without thought of malice, it may be just a joke that went awry.

Here is the issue, Are you just reacting to the fear, are you thinking of the manipulation that is going on and who holds the cards in this manipulation? Do you ask "why" and "who benefits.

Fear produces many things, but the most important hing IMHO is introspection.

The why, who, where, what and when of fear must be evaluated for us to conquer the fears being produced.

Don' t just "be afraid", think dammit!

First, the facts. Willie McGee, an African-American driver of a ­grocery-delivery truck, was accused of raping a white woman, Willette Hawkins, in November 1945 in Laurel, Miss. After deliberating for less than three minutes, an all-white jury sentenced him to death, and the "small-town crime," as Alex Heard writes, "became famous around the world." Bella Abzug, long before she became a congress­woman, served as McGee's defense lawyer during the appeals process, working on a case that today evokes the story line of Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird." Albert Einstein, Norman Mailer and Paul Robeson supported McGee, and left-wing journalists ranted about the trial in The Daily Worker. In contrast to their reports, "The Eyes of Willie McGee" does not crackle with rage, despite its horrific ending: on May 8, 1951, McGee was electrocuted in the local courthouse, leaving an odor of burned flesh in the room.

I found this article and I wanted to share it with all of you. Some of you will not like it but I feel there is alot of Truth in it and I give a big thumbs up to Mr. David Jolly.

This past June the US Congress ordered the words 'In God We Trust' to be engraved on the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC. This was in response to criticism that the $621 million center, which opened in December, cost too much and made no acknowledgement of the country’s religious heritage.

On Tuesday the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit to block the carving of both 'In God We Trust' and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center.

The engravings are to be paid for by taxpayer dollars and according to a press release by the foundation are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The Complaint notes that the selection of "In God We Trust" as a motto, and the insertion of "under God" into the formerly secular Pledge of Allegiance, were both adopted belatedly in the 1950s during the Cold War. The godly motto, adopted in 1956, did not appear upon paper currency until 1957. The pledge was tampered with by Congress in 1954, after generations of schoolchildren had learned the original, godless version composed in 1892. Both changes were the result of religious lobbying. The Congressional Report accompanying the 1954 pledge act, which openly disapproved of atheism, read: "The inclusion of God in the pledge . . . would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism."

The Foundation Complaint said the Congressional appropriations "will give actual and apparent government endorsement and advancement of religion," while excluding nonreligious Americans.

" 'In God We Trust' excludes and treats as outsiders the millions of adult Americans, including as many as 15% of all adults, who are not religious, i.e., atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers, none of whom possesses a belief in a god; the mandated language diminishes nonbelievers by making god-belief synonymous with citizenship.

According to the Treasury Department, "In God We Trust" first appeared on one coin in 1864. It was not stamped on all coins until 1934, and was not printed on paper money until 1957, the year after Congress made it the official motto of the USA. Indeed, until then 'E Pluribus Unum' ("out of many, one") had been the de facto US motto, as it had been approved for use on the Seal of the United States in 1782. However, because it had never been established as the official "national motto," the 84th United States Congress declared:

"At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that 'In God we trust' be so designated as U.S. national motto."

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by socialist Francis Bellamy. It originally read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted as the official national pledge in 1942. However, it was not until 1954, the time of the "Red Scare," that Congress added the words "under God."

While the lawsuit challenging the carving of the motto and the pledge was brought by an organization that advocates for the rights of atheists and agnostics, there are Christians who do not support such an engraving. Susan Campbell wrote on her blog, Fear, Itself:

I grew up in a fundamentalist church that abhorred religious symbolism. We had no crosses on the wall, and none around our necks on little chains. So I factor that upbringing in when I consider my lack of need to express my faith in masonry.

What about you? Do you think 'In God We Trust' should be on US money and public buildings?

On November 18, 1936, the United Auto Workers launched a series of strikes across the nation against General Motors. The BBC reported the strike was "heard around the world."

Flint, Michigan, my home town, was where auto workers decided to fight 72 years ago. The auto workers had many demands that, by today's standards, we would expect from workers in third world countries: workers not receiving gloves (causing severe injuries on the job); exhausting hours, and unfair, below-market wages.

Workers' desire for unionism was granted in the 1930s when the federal government recognized the right to form and organize unions. With federal protection now in place, unions started organizing.

At GM, because of the end of WWII, wages had been reduced from $40 per week to about $20. Sound familiar? This is happening again right now. Republican Senators, tying the loan money to GM and Chrysler but holding out to force hard-working middle-class Americans to drop their wages and give up more security in their future.

At this time, it is important to look back and understand how the UAW and automotive workers played a central role in ensuring safety for workers all over the nation and recognition and enforcement of basic rights. We are on the brink of millions of Americans losing their jobs, which will cause a ripple effect throughout the nation. On December 30, 2008, we will recognize the 72nd anniversary of the Flint Sit-Down Strike right before Congress decides whether to throw a lifeline to GM and Chrysler. A loan, to be repaid to the American people.

The Flint Sit-Down Strike

For 44 days, from December 30, 1936 to February 11, 1937, GM workers held the nation's first sit-down strike. The Women's Emergency Brigade also helped win one of the greatest victories in the American labor movement. The movie, "With Babies and Banners" pays tribute to these women, some wives of the strikers and some workers themselves.

Because harsh times haunted the workers, job security was an important issue. Spies ran rampant, informing on union members. The workers could be fired for any reason by any foreman at anytime. The work was difficult, dangerous and monotonus. Exertion caused workers extreme exhaustion and distressed workers' families, who shared the fear of possible job loss. Could the worker endure?

On December 30, 1936 the Union learned that GM was planning to move the dies out of Fisher-Body Plant # 1. Members of the small union were told to occupy the plant. The Flint sit-down strike began.

According to the Detroit News article, "The historic 1936-37 Flint auto plant strikes" By Vivian M. Baulch and Patricia Zacharias (June 23, 1997):

On Nov. 18, 1936, the UAW struck a Fisher Body plant in Altanta. On Dec. 16, they hit two GM plants in Kansas City, and on Dec. 28, a Fisher stamping plant in Cleveland. Two days later they struck Fisher Body No. 1 in Flint. Within two weeks, approximately 135,000 men from plants in 35 cities in 14 states were striking General Motors.

As the nation was emerging from the Great Depression, the striking workers enjoyed the sympathy of most of the people, including Michigan governor Frank Murphy and popular New Deal President Franklin Delano Roosvelt. Roosevelt had promised in his inaugural speech to drive out the "economic royalists," a pointed reference to the General Motors officials.

Those against the upstart union included Al Sloan, the GM president, and his comrade, the opinionated Henry Ford, who felt more sympathy for his competitor than for workers. Ford, however, refused to shut down his plants in sympathy for GM. Of course, the stockholders sided with their profit maker. And one Gallup poll revealed that 53 percent of those polled sided with the company.

In a conventional strike the union takes its members outside the plant and attempts to prevent the employer from operating by discouraging other employees from entering. In a sit-down strike, the workers physically occupy the plant, keeping management and others out.

GM requested and received an injunction from a Michigan state court judge. The judge ordered the strikers to leave the plant. The UAW discovered the judge held roughly $200,000 in GM stock. With a clear conflict of interest and the obvious appearance of impropriety, the Union got the judge disqualified from hearing any case involving GM.

And the strikers didn't leave.

On Jan. 3, 1937, 200 U.A.W. delegates from around the country met in Flint to create a Board of Strategy. The delegates authorized a formal corporation-wide strike and they served GM with a set of the following 8 demands:

First of all, that the representatives of the United Auto Workers and General Motors meet for an industry wide conference to discuss the differences between labor and management; second, that all piece-work be abolished and straight hourly rates of pay be adopted; third, that a thirty hour work week and a six hour workday be established with time and a half for overtime; fourth, that a minimum rate of pay commensurate with the American standard of living be established throughout the corporation's domestic plants; fifth, that all employees unjustly discharged be reinstated; sixth, that seniority rights be based upon length of service; seventh, that the UAW be recognized as the sole bargaining agent between General Motors and its employees; and , finally, the speed of production be mutually agreed upon by management and a union committee in all General Motors plants."

(Thomas A. Karman, "The Flint Sit-Down Strike", "Michigan History", June, 1962, pages 105 and 106.)

The Flint police attempted to enter the Fisher plant on January 11, 1937. Guards refused to allow food in. Outside picketers brought food in by ladder to the second floor. The guards confiscated the ladder. Police began to surround the plant and fired tear gas and vomit-inducing gas. But strikers turned fire hoses on the police and pelted them with auto parts. The Women's Emergency Brigade and Women's Auxiliary broke windows in the plant to give strikers some relief from the gas. The police made several charges, but withdrew after six hours. The strikers dubbed this "The Battle of Bulls Run." Before they left they shot and wounded 14.

GM obtained a second injunction against the strike on February 1, 1937. The union ignored the order and spread the strike to Chevrolet Plant # 4. To avoid tipping its hand, the union let it be known in the hours before the move that it intended to go after another plant and changed directions at the last minute. GM was waiting at the wrong plant.

After Chevy Plant # 4 had been taken occupied, the Michigan National Guard descended upon Flint. The union held strong and responded to the second injunction to evacuate by declaring "Women's Day." Women came from all over Detroit, Toledo, other parts of Ohio and elsewhere, and their parade became the longest (end to end) picket line in Flint history. a>

That development forced GM to bargain with the Union. GM's representatives refused to be in the same room as the UAW. Governor Frank Murphy acted as courier and mediator between the two groups. The parties reached an agreement on February 11, 1937. The one page agreement recognized the UAW as the exclusive bargaining representative for GM's employees who were members of the union for the next six months.

As short as this agreement was, it led to the UAW signing up 100,000 GM employees and building the Union's strength through grievance strikes at GM plants throughout the country.

More than any other union, the UAW is the greatest contributor to the success of industrial unionism. And one company -- General Motors -- can be singled out as the reason that the auto workers unionized. It was the largest manufacturer in the industry, the largest manufacturing corporation in the world, and the first auto manufacturer to be organized.

Whatever you think of unions, they have played an important part in American history. Aside from the right to organize, labor movements have campaigned on various other issues, from limiting hours and establishing overtime pay, combating child labor, improving workplace conditions, fighting sweatshops, pushing for fair wages, fighting labor abuses and the right to equal treatment, regardless of gender, origin and appearance, religion, sexual orientation.

Through the glass partition that holds the studio, a dozen or so actors, most of them household names, struggle to give rhythm and meaning to the words I've provided, a good half of them written by Thomas Paine himself in the course of that extraordinary life. And as I sit there, I wonder again how such a mind, such an output, such an influence, can have been suppressed into invisibility and damped into silence. Is it just a matter of that old "selective tradition" or is there something else at work? (Discuss.)

This picture was taken recently on a family trip to New York City. It is a picture of my son looking at the Statue of Liberty from a distance. I started to explain to him the significance of the statue and what it symbolizes for our country.