Puritans to Prohibition
Alcohol in the Colonial Era.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
Daily Kos: SC-Gov: The national implications
A good take on South Carolina's gubernatorial politics from a correspondent on the DailyKos site.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
information
This is the coolest site I've seen in a while. You can get further into the pictures forever. It's an infinite mosaic.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner-- President Not Amused?
Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner-- President Not Amused?: "Turning to the war, he declared, 'I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.'"
Friday, April 28, 2006
Elvis, the world's smartest cow. By Jon Katz
Elvis, the world's smartest cow. By Jon Katz
I used to love the cows that inhabited the pasture behind my grandparents' house and trailer. I would stare at them, and they at me, for long minutes at a time. I've always wanted a cow of my own (and enough room and money to keep it), and Elvis seems like the kind of cow anyone would love to have around.
I used to love the cows that inhabited the pasture behind my grandparents' house and trailer. I would stare at them, and they at me, for long minutes at a time. I've always wanted a cow of my own (and enough room and money to keep it), and Elvis seems like the kind of cow anyone would love to have around.
The problem with the United 93 films. By Ron Rosenbaum
The problem with the United 93 films. By Ron Rosenbaum
Depressing, but thoughtful and intelligent, unlike most of the 9/11 "analysis" to which we're subjected constantly. Even Brian Williams of NBC "News" used the new flight 93 movie to "remind us that we're at war." What arrogance!
Depressing, but thoughtful and intelligent, unlike most of the 9/11 "analysis" to which we're subjected constantly. Even Brian Williams of NBC "News" used the new flight 93 movie to "remind us that we're at war." What arrogance!
Monday, April 24, 2006
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!: "the absence of faith is not faith, any more than the absence of a sandwich is also a kind of tasty snack between two slices of bread."
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!: "the absence of faith is not faith, any more than the absence of a sandwich is also a kind of tasty snack between two slices of bread."
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!: "the absence of faith is not faith, any more than the absence of a sandwich is also a kind of tasty snack between two slices of bread."
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!: "the absence of faith is not faith, any more than the absence of a sandwich is also a kind of tasty snack between two slices of bread."
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!
Pharyngula: Look, Ma, I'm a "secular whackjob"!: "the absence of faith is not faith, any more than the absence of a sandwich is also a kind of tasty snack between two slices of bread."
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Response to the article by Melinda Barton on Raw Story, which I posted in my previous entry. Myers took the time to analyze the Barton piece. I probably wouldn't have come up with quite as scathing a response, as it's not in my nature (or nurture: take your pick), but I think his decimation of Barton's article is right on.
But that brings up a different sort of problem. How do you deal with the political ramifications of "secularism"? There are a lot of people out there who perceive the Democratic Party as the party of godless license, and who vote otherwise or not at all because of this perception. These are people who vote against their own economic and political interests because they fear the outcome if some godless liberal managed to take office. How can Progressives build and maintain a "big tent" if we keep having these arguments over the nature and existence of god? Republicans seem somehow to have managed to bring together the Social (read, conservative Christian) Right and the Economic Right, despite their divergent interests, yet Democrats have difficulty appealing to groups with convergent interests because of divergent social views.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The Raw Story | The left's own religious whackjobs
The Raw Story | The left's own religious whackjobs
I don't know if I support all the contentions in this article, but I wanted to go ahead and blog it. I'll edit this post later, maybe, after I ruminate on the main points some more.
I don't know if I support all the contentions in this article, but I wanted to go ahead and blog it. I'll edit this post later, maybe, after I ruminate on the main points some more.
Friday, April 21, 2006
John Dean on Bush's personality
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Predicting Presidential Performance
Dean wrote this piece nearly two years ago, in May 2004. Amazing prescience.
Dean wrote this piece nearly two years ago, in May 2004. Amazing prescience.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Disturbing thought exercise from Billmon
Whiskey Bar: Mutually Assured Dementia
tackles possible outcomes if the U.S. attacked Iran with nuclear weapons.
tackles possible outcomes if the U.S. attacked Iran with nuclear weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)