REVIEW RSS FEED
READER COMMENTS
I am a documentary maker and hospice volunteer in
They have done Nat a favor. There is an old expression, 'You are known by the company you keep'. Well, here's a small sampling of the articles to be found on today's Voice:
The Most OCD Video Games; Q-Bert, LEGO Batman, Mercenaries 2, and More
Kathy Griffin Says "Dicks" On CNN
Dish About Phelps, Cruise, and Shrek
Cynthia Nixon on Sex and the City and Awards Shows Galore!
My Girlfriend Farts and Belches and It's Gross. Am I Being Sexist?
Is a Dude Who Screws Trees Gay or Straight?
Should I Be a Journalist or a Fetish Model?
VIDEO: Why Is Fox's Sister Company Hosting New 'Watchmen' Sneak Peek?
Universal's 2008 Surpasses Studio's All Time Best-Ever Box Office Records
OBAMA SILENT ON
Good ol' wishy washy Status Quobama!
RATHER'S LAWSUIT RAISES BIG ISSUES ABOUT CBS, BUSH
I think his behavior merits a criminal trial, a new Nuremberg Tribunal at which he, Bushco, and their shills will stand in the dock and be prosecuted for crimes against peace and humanity. I'm not completely clear about the punishment after conviction, though. Perhaps just put them all in a zoo somewhere, a monkey island guarded around the clock, to stay there for the rest of their unnatural lives.
SUIT FILED OVER POLICE ABUSE OF ORGANIC FOOD CO-OP
Many aspects of the story are troubling. To begin with, how can any producer on the one hand claim to offer 'organic food', and on the other claim exemption from inspection because they are an unlicensed private entity? The term 'organic' implies that certain standards of accreditation have been recognized. It involves a rigorous process, including compliance with routine inspection of facilities and methods, evaluation of past uses of the property, as well as periodic soil analysis, etc. Offering as 'organic', food that has been produced by no accountable means on uncertified land, strikes of misrepresentation, at best, and precariously borders on the realm of fraud.
Another area of concern is the distribution of meats and dairy goods processed from facilities equally unaccountable to scrutiny. How it is that they are not in some violation of
Buckeye Institute? The same Buckeye Institute that filed a RICO action against ACORN in October? The same Buckeye Institute that has been aligned with the Free Enterprise Coalition? The same Buckeye Institute that has on staff RNC Platform/Steering Committee member and former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell? The same J. Kenneth Blackwell responsible for the purging of 133,000
It's nice to have libertarians looking out for people's rights when liberals are too busy with other things - Sam
STAYING IN CAN COST ENERGY, TOO
Correcting air infiltration/loss can yield substantial savings in energy costs. However, it isn't simply a matter of sealing up all of the holes. I take particular issue with sealing the attic fan. One must weigh the potential energy savings against the costs to repair damages to the attic space resulting from moisture build-up due to inadequate ventilation--the fan is up there for a very good reason. Before doing anything, have someone perform an energy audit of your home. Many of the power companies offer this service at low to no cost. (Presently they run about $100 here in the mid-west. Several years ago in New England, the service was free) The audits available in my region include pressurizing the house to expose leaks, an infra-red scan to expose leaks and insulation faults in the wall cavities, a computer analysis of the 'R' efficiency of the structure/windows/etc, and a list of recommendations to correct problems and/or improve efficiency. Well worth having done. Additionally, many of the power companies provide rebates to off-set a portion of the costs for recommended repairs that are completed. One more thought, installation of a programmable thermostat can also significantly cut heating and cooling costs. Our fuel oil costs in
TOP RESEARCH CENTER CALLS FOR REVIEW OF PHTHALATES
I can't help but get a small ironic snicker out of the idea that all those plastic 'G.I. Joe' war and violence toys might just end up emasculating the little hellions who play with them.
BOOK PUBLISHING IN BIG TROUBLE
The publishing business - from the agents, the editors, et al - has become so insular and so snobbish, it's probably better to clean them all out.
PAY DIFFERENTIAL
It is a well known fact that the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better (or care). It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. -
Joe Bialek,
IS PROZAC TO BLAME FOR THE CRASH?
Is Prozac causing all of these stock market bubbles? Way back in March of 2000, Slate.com ran a story titled, "Is Prozac Driving Wall Street?" It included the following nugget which now seems prescient:
|||| Randolph Nesse, author (with George Williams) of Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, estimates that about 20 million Americans are on antidepressants. And at least some people who take these drugs "become far less cautious than they were before, worrying too little about real dangers. This is exactly the mind-set of many current investors." If indeed "investor caution is being inhibited by psychotropic drugs," a Wall Street bubble "could grow larger than usual" before popping "with potentially catastrophic economic and political consequences.|||||
Prozac and other anti-depressant use became widespread starting in the early 1990s. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the use of such drugs by all adults has nearly tripled in the last decade (nearly 1 in 10 adults in one of them). And the massive rise in antidepressant use also corresponds with the ending of one recession (1992) and three subsequent enormous stock market bubbles and busts (internet, telecom, and housing).
But while the correlation is dramatic, causation is difficult if not impossible to prove. I think a more likely explanation for all the stock market bubbles is that corporate power has grown so dramatically over the last 30 years that passing effective regulation became impossible. With the corporate titans, left to self-police, it became inevitable that we'd see a massive game of financial musical chairs as they pumped all of the wealth out of one sector of the economy after another (they basically sucked all of the wealth out of retirement funds, real estate, and the public treasury over the last 10 years).
But here's my point -- I believe it is precisely the rise in corporate power -- that is causing the rise in anti-depressant use (not the other way around). It is precisely the way that corporate power tears down communities and families and dehumanizes our world that plunges so many people into anomie and despair. So for example, when Wal-Mart comes into a town and destroys all of the small retail businesses and the middle class jobs and community that went with them -- and forces people to work at low wages so we can all buy cheap Chinese-made imported goods -- that has got to cause an increase in depression in a town. Now multiply that by thousands of sectors of the economy that have been overwhelmed by corporate power over the last decade or two and you have the depression epidemic we have now.
My point is that -- if indeed the leading cause of depression is not some unexplainable medical phenomenon but rather the very real suffering caused by the very awful corporations who have come to dominate our lives -- then we've got a huge problem on our hands. Because under ordinary (pre-Prozac) circumstances the rise in human suffering might cause people to ask the question -- "Hey how come everyone is so miserable?" And we might reach for collective solutions that work to change the conditions in which we all live. Instead, the problem is now individualized and medicalized -- "individuals have medical problems it's not society's fault" -- and through massive prescription drug use, we may be silencing the very canaries in the coal mines we need to save our society from further ruin. -
OBAMA
I'm with you on Obama. The change he represents is nothing more than that of replacing an utterly incompetent corporate rule with that of more competent technocrats who serve the same masters. There is hope. But the hope lies not in Obama or his
But Obama did say at least one memorable thing during the campaign. During one of the debates McCain blasted Obama for opposing the trade pact with
Of course then Obama goes and throws human rights out the window by appointing HRC as Secretary of State. But I think the lesson we need to learn from this is that Obama is a president capable of understanding human rights issues as they relate to economic policy; but that he'll need an extremely vocal movement prodding him from below or we can't expect much more than business as usual from his administration. - Andrew
I think a key to understanding Obama is to acknowledge he is an evangelist. Not a typical black evangelist, but he nevertheless seeks to convert us in the same way that religious evangelists work. Rick Warren is also, most certainly, an evangelist, currently the most rational one now working, the heir to Billy Graham. My hunch is Obama wants to get
I believe Obama was also much in thrall to Jeremiah Wright. Wright to me was right. If I were black, I, too, would say, "God damn
When I become president, their will be nothing religious in my inauguration or my administration. I will take my oath on the Jefferson Bible, the one that eliminated all superstitious material from it, making it a slim volume. - WH, Maine
14 Comments:
Whatever else, to say that slavery was "at the heart of the pre-independence America" is simply another example of 'liberal white guilt' silliness. Slavery was practiced only within the southern states of the US, by less than five percent of the landowning or farming populace. Slavery itself was neither explicitly enshrined, nor to be fair, explicitly repudiated in the Constitution. Slavery was certainly a major component of the agricultural plantation economy; but to make the claim that it was at "the heart" of the politico-social reality of America either prior to the drafting of the Constitution, the War of Independence, or frankly, at any other point in US history prior to the Civil War is absurdist overstatement.
Oh, really?
Then explain this:
By the late colonial period, the average slave-owning household in New England and the Mid-Atlantic seems to have had about 2 slaves. Estates of 50 or 60 slaves were rare, though they did exist in the Hudson Valley, eastern Connecticut, and the Narragansett region of Rhode Island. But the Northern climate set some barriers to large-scale agricultural slavery. The long winters, which brought no income on Northern farms, made slaves a burden for many months of the year unless they could be hired out to chop wood or tend livestock. In contrast to Southern plantation slavery, Northern slavery tended to be urban.
Slaveholding reflected social as well as economic standing, for in colonial times servants and retainers were visible symbols of rank and distinction. The leading families of Massachusetts and Connecticut used slaves as domestic servants, and in Rhode Island, no prominent household was complete without a large staff of black retainers. New York's rural gentry regarded the possession of black coachmen and footmen as an unmistakable sign of social standing. In Boston, Philadelphia, and New York the mercantile elite kept retinues of household slaves. Their example was followed by tradesmen and small retailers until most houses of substance had at least one or two domestics.
Want more?...
Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England, though the exact beginning of black slavery in what became Massachusetts cannot be dated exactly. Slavery there is said to have predated the settlement of Massachusetts Bay colony in 1629, and circumstantial evidence gives a date of 1624-1629 for the first slaves. "Samuel Maverick, apparently New England's first slaveholder, arrived in Massachusetts in 1624 and, according to [John Gorham] Palfrey, owned two Negroes before John Winthrop, who later became governor of the colony, arrived in 1630."
...Most, if not all, of the limited 17th century New England slave trade was in the hands of Massachusetts. Boston merchants made New England's first attempt at direct import of slaves from West Africa to the West Indies in 1644, but though the venture was partially successful, it was premature because the big chartered companies still held monopoly on the Gold Coast and Guinea.
Not satisfied, yet?
African slaves were noted in New Hampshire by 1645. They concentrated in the area around Portsmouth. Furthermore, as one of the few colonies that did not impose a tariff on slaves, New Hampshire became a base for slaves to be imported into America then smuggled into other colonies. Every census up to the Revolution showed an increase in black population, though they remained proportionally fewer than in most other New England colonies.
A commonly accepted date for the end of slavery in New Hampshire is 1857, when an act was passed stating that "No person, because of decent, should be disqualified from becoming a citizen of the state." The act is interpreted as prohibiting slavery. By a strict interpretation, however, slavery was outlawed only on Dec. 6, 1865, when the 13th amendment went into effect. (Ratified by New Hampshire July 1, 1865.)
The list goes on and on...
But 11:14 is largely correct in maintaining that black slavery was pretty peripheral to the expanding nation and to its economic makeup *as a whole*, 12:03. Most revisionists don't much care to face that, but it's a fact nonetheless. And while, according to some, facts may be 'stupid things' (not to mention inconvenient at times) they remain facts nonetheless.
I find it interesting that you went to the trouble of citing the long passages above, but gave no indication as to your sources; which omission, while possibly inadvertent, doesn't serve you well in backing up your case, as it tends to suggest they might be suspect or skewed.
you do realize that the passages cited are, in fact, active links to the original the original sources?
you do realize that the passages cited are, in fact, active links to the original sources?
Actually, no; as someone who's in my seventies and not enormously computer savvy, I have been known to miss these things; but having now checked, I have to admit my initial guess was correct; I don't place any particular faith in a pretty obviously agenda-driven Internet site as being an overly trustworthy historical source.
want more?
try going to Google and select the Advanced search option. in the "all these words:" field try entering 'New England' or 'Northern Colonies'. in the "this exact wording or phrase:" field enter the word 'slavery'.
the New England/slavery combination will generate 1,880,000 other sites, Northern Colonies/slavery brings up 82,700 sites for your perusal.
so sad you were not able to appreciate the links posted. as something of a history buff and former New England resident, the data presented is consistent, as well as corroborative, with observations and study i have made in the area over several decades. the numbers become more impressive when one considers that at the time of the American Revolution the population was merely 3 million. today the census estimates the US population to be over 345,000,000, providing a ratio of 115:1. thus, relatively speaking, the 674 slaves resident in New Hampshire during the post-revolution period would translate as an equivalent of 77,510 resident today
as for you, what citations do you offer the rest of us for your creative interpretation of history?
Two points:
1.) Your information, while of some interest (though still suspect in my opinion) doesn't alter the crux of my argument that slavery was not central to the economic or social realities of pre-Civil War America as a whole;
2.) It does not answer very well the charge I've made to you that information gleaned from the Internet is not usually terribly reliable by tossing up yet more Internet sites and links. I have no more reason to believe that the information to be found on them would be any more unbiased or relaible than what you've placed here so far.
Sorry. You will have to do better than this.
again, I ask you what are your credentials, and, sources for the creative representation of history that you elect to submit to the rest of us?
you have to do better, my friend
What a great variety of topics! You summary sections were interesting to read and did a nice job of putting your work into perspective.
I haven't chosen to "submit" you to anything, my friend. To phrase your defense of your preferred revisionist version of history in such a manner is just further evidence of a fairly non-serious turn of mind, which makes your own posturings as some type of expert on this subject just that much more suspect. Which takes me by no surprise coming from one whose chief source of information on history seems to issue mostly from the somewhat-less-than-reliable Internet.
And I note that you've still been unable to answer my main contention, which is simply that black slavery was not "at the heart" of the American socio-econimico-political scene pre Civil War, but actually quite peripheral, those 674 'slaves' residing in pre-Revolutionary New Hampshire notwithstanding. And what on earth does your (absurdly overstated) estimate of what their numbers might be by today's equivalent have to do with anything? One comes to suspect your math skills are about as faulty as your skills at historical interpretation.
Other than League of the South rantings, what sources can you cite to justify your incredible assertions, 8:48.
As a matter of perspective, would you be so kind as to tell us what exactly is your opinion of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and how do you feel regarding the adulation felt for Martin Luther King?
A thinly veiled ad hominem attack just makes it the more plain to me, 1:11, that you cannot answer my initial point, and would seemingly suggest that you aren't capable of very clear or rigorous thought, period, since those sort of responses are usually the resort of the desperate. A pitiful example of what passes for knowledge from those who rely on the Internet for the mainstay of their information on any subject.
uh.. nice post.
Post a Comment
<< Home