Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


How bout that voting rights act hummm?
July 3, 2006 11:57 AM   Subscribe

The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave and abolitionist, was asked to give a Fourth of July speech while slavery still existed. His fiery talk is what this section is about: People within America recognizing that the American promises ring hollow. Bush tells CBC he's 'unfamiliar' with Voting Rights Act Also see: LCCR Disappointed that House Failed to Vote on Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Bill "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have." George W. Bush
posted by Unregistered User (47 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
The Republican blockage of VRA renewal is a travesty. More tactically, it's just stupid--Republicans can bitch and moan about how white Democrats pay mere lip-service to helping out African Americans, and in some ways they do have a point, but an issue like this just reminds them which party is the obvious lesser of two evils. That, and Obama doesn't hurt.

Anyways, a nice reminder from Douglass about what this country has accomplished and how much further it has to go.
posted by bardic at 12:15 PM on July 3, 2006


Dobbs- North American Union
posted by Unregistered User at 12:23 PM on July 3, 2006


“The Republican blockage of VRA renewal is a travesty”

*coughBipartisanoppositioncough*

But - lesser of two evils when it comes to ethnic issues?....yeah, I’d concede that.

Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) has proposed a constitutional amendment on the right to vote.

I think the hold up is because section 5 is about Scientology...heh.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:35 PM on July 3, 2006


/nifty links btw Unregistered User
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on July 3, 2006


Of course the shrub is unfamiliar with the voting rights act....he's unfamiliar with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta and the whole notion of "the rule of law." What he is, instead, is a corporate whore who practices what corporations practice: lie until caught, and then pass the buck and deny, deny, deny.

I was thinking the other day that if this is what we can expect from "the first CEO president," then good fucking riddance. I'll take a lawyer over this cocksucking asshole any day.

(now waiting for the knock on the door...)

/angry rant

Great links...thanks for this post.
posted by nevercalm at 12:43 PM on July 3, 2006 [2 favorites]


*coughBipartisanoppositioncough*
Smedleyman - the bipartisan opposition noted in the article is to weakening the Voting Rights Act. It's not bipartisan opposition to the Voting Rights Act.
There is bipartisan support for renewing the Voting Rights Act, but according to all the links so far in this thread, only a subset of Congressional Republicans are opposing the renewal.
posted by mistersix at 12:57 PM on July 3, 2006


I just went to our local Juneteenth Parade a couple of weeks ago. Juneteenth commemorates the day that word of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the ears of the last slaves in the United States. Or, unlike July 4th, Juneteenth celebrates the liberty of all Americans.
posted by flarbuse at 12:58 PM on July 3, 2006


"the first CEO president"

Conservative Professor Chides Bush’s Management Style
Charles Kesler, a conservative professor at Claremont McKenna college, pens an op-ed in the LAT today, arguing, “[I]t’s not clear that being a master of business administration has made [Bush] a better chief executive. … Bush’s management style is long on decisions and short on explanations. He’s apparently better at listening to others than questioning their views.”
posted by ericb at 1:19 PM on July 3, 2006


On a similar note, As far as anthems, celebration, patriotism go, nobody can beat the Monty Python sketch in which the professors of the philosophy department of the University of Wulabaloo sing:

This here is the wattle
the emblem of our land
You can stick it in a bottle
or you can hold it in your hand

Yay! independence ! RA! RA! RA!, goooooooo team!
posted by Unregistered User at 1:24 PM on July 3, 2006


Smedleyman, since it's a holiday weekend I'd be happy to have some of what you're smoking.

From th first paragraph of what you linked: "House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight."

Further down, a Rep. member of the House talks about the "standing order" that only "majority of a majority" legislation will even make it to the floor.

But thanks for playing.
posted by bardic at 1:45 PM on July 3, 2006


So, am I missing something or did The Jesse Helms , post text that is not showing up?
posted by Unregistered User at 1:50 PM on July 3, 2006


mistersix - there are degrees, but yeah, my mistake. Apologies bardic.
(That whole ‘pre-clear’ thing totally distracted me)
posted by Smedleyman at 2:00 PM on July 3, 2006


*hands bardic smoking drywall*
posted by Smedleyman at 2:02 PM on July 3, 2006


In Defense of Liberty
posted by homunculus at 2:03 PM on July 3, 2006


not sure this 'fdl' thing is important to any degree, homunculus ..

American jurisprudence when it relates to those with power - especially those with political power - can be very fluid

to be crude the powerful make the rules of jurisprudence & the poor are the victims of it

what bush has lost & i believe he has lost it irrevocably with the american people - is trust

i simply cannot bear all the googoo baabaa talk at firedoglake on 'the law' - it is that babytalk we hear so often in the university cafeterias - the law is not neutral - it is not above the actions & questions of human affairs & like its sister journalism it has become completely subsumed by its own internal necessities & 'values'.

i do not now believe that that law can redeem anything except the most basic & accidental causalities

as i have sd here before - it was what was happening on the streets of america that created real civil rights - at least as they existed

the 'law' has become for me an integral element of the 'institutions of fear' - this becaem very clear when the west began in an onslaught to criminalise resistance - whether that was irish republicans, whether it was trade unionists, whether it was in silencing public advocates - this criminalisation for example in commonwealth law which led to the deregistering of militant unions & now of sacrificing their exmembers to work practices & conditions that rival anything in the late 19th century

that absence of trust will make the rest of his term hell. unfortunately he has the power to make it hell for the world too

i would have thought the conviction of the lawyer stewart in new york would have made it clear to anyone that jurisprudence of any substance no longer exists in america. it is as althusser inferred an apparatus completely comprimised by powere. & in america it is degraded from its naked links with that power - rehnquist & scalia particularly - but so overwhelming in its culture - that they are just two of many.

as a side issue - i had a love affair with jurisprudence - thinking of it as one of the occupations where you could bring the war home to the enemy

but generation after generation, year after year, has taught me that as an ideal justice is a noble thing, but that the reality - the reality that is common to most of us wherever we live - is that the institutioons of jurisprudence are completely corrupted, completely bankrupt

Finally, Jurisprudence ... Justice (aka "Just Ice") has not existed in the US for a lot longer than most people want to hear about, rg ... SF writer Stanislaw Lem said something like: There is a difference between the dream being dead, and it being dreamed wrong.
posted by Unregistered User at 2:34 PM on July 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


sorry for the stream of conscienceness comment and typo's above... I'll step down from my box now.
posted by Unregistered User at 2:43 PM on July 3, 2006


I'll step down from my box now.
posted by Unregistered User at 2:43 PM PST


Please feel free to continue.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:00 PM on July 3, 2006


Cripes, Lou dobbs is out of his fucking mind.
posted by Paris Hilton at 3:02 PM on July 3, 2006


that absence of trust will make the rest of his term hell. unfortunately he has the power to make it hell for the world too

What makes you think his "term" actually has an end? I've seen nothing that indicates they'll relinquish power, and much to make me think they won't. They prove over and over that laws and the Constitution mean nothing to them.
posted by amberglow at 3:04 PM on July 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


They prove over and over that laws and the Constitution mean nothing to them.

When is someone going to do something about them? Legally of course.

I'm just a beaver-lovin' Canadian, so I can't really do squat.
posted by illiad at 3:16 PM on July 3, 2006


When is someone going to do something about them? Legally of course.
I'm just a beaver-lovin' Canadian, so I can't really do squat.


Come now. You and the rest of the world CAN do squat. Just stop accepting the US Dollar and US made goods (ok, the goods - hard to do due to a lack of US made goods) and stop trading with 'em.

Personally, I lost the bet that the rest of the world would give up accepting the US dollar. But, short of a shooting war, is what the rest of the world could do.

And ponder this: If current US production stayed flat, that gives us an R/P ratio of 7.2 years. At that point, in 2013, discounting both declines and reserve additions--which may, surprisingly, even out, the US will import every single barrel of oil it consumes.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:23 PM on July 3, 2006


No Mefi’er has ever done more for this thread than I have.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:44 PM on July 3, 2006


What makes you think his "term" actually has an end?

You know, amberglow, that's a bet I'll take, if only because (iirc) there's no limit on the number of times you can be appointed to an influential cabinet position. Will you offer 1:1 odds?
posted by Richard Daly at 4:11 PM on July 3, 2006


It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.

This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.

Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.


posted by halekon at 5:15 PM on July 3, 2006 [2 favorites]


But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.

But that's less and less true lately. Even existing rights are disappearing, let alone those yet allowed.

On this July 4 weekend, I'm troubled.

It's not like there's any great revelation to be found in this blogpost. No breaking news, no diatribe against the lastest "faux-controversy."

Just a general sense of unease. ...

posted by amberglow at 5:18 PM on July 3, 2006


The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:20 PM on July 3, 2006


You know, amberglow, that's a bet I'll take, if only because (iirc) there's no limit on the number of times you can be appointed to an influential cabinet position. Will you offer 1:1 odds?
posted by Richard Daly at 4:11 PM PST on July 3 [+fave] [!]


My guess is that we won't see Bush again (he's mainly a figurehead after all, and can't function without his handlers) but we'll certainly see Cheney and Rummy, as we have before, and now Rice in the next Republican cabinet. And over and over, until they tranfer their memories and personality into a younger clone die off.

Sometimes when I'm feeling pretty paranoid I imagine a senario in which Bush uses a bullshit terrorist attack/threat to suspend election indefinately. But I think that not even they would stoop to that. Not when they already have the power to control the vote so that the aformentioned trio stay in office for as long as they want, with a different face as President.
posted by kosher_jenny at 5:30 PM on July 3, 2006


No one commented on the first link. Hmmm. I thought it was absolutely amazing. Not that I pretend to be extremely well-read, but I think it was perhaps the best speech I've ever seen. Thanks Unregistered User.
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
Wow. I hesitate to apply to current events words crafted to describe such horrible times, but.. but that passage really struck me.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
My prayer is that enough of us will do our best in following what is true and good, to make sure that this statement does not become an apt description of present-day America.
posted by ryran at 5:32 PM on July 3, 2006


mistersix - there are degrees, but yeah, my mistake. Apologies bardic.
(That whole ‘pre-clear’ thing totally distracted me)


Nothing about degrees, Smed. There are three main groups of people (there are some party-line crossers, but not many):

1. Republicans who want it killed outright
2. Republicans who want it amended to meaninglessness, then put up for a vote
3. Democrats who want it up for a vote as is.

Groups 1 and 3 constitute the "bipartisan opposition" to the amendment favored by group 2. It's disingenuous at best to say that there is bipartisan opposition to the VRA itself; as you did above (twice). That's according to the link you provided; I assume you read it.
posted by swell at 5:35 PM on July 3, 2006


There are columns like this all over the country this holiday: from the Kansas City Star: ...We no longer know who we are or where we are going. The crisis would be easy to fix were it caused by some enemy invader with a vast army. Yet, they are not responsible for this state of affairs.

We stand at this crossroads as a nation bleeding to death because our government leaders believe that the best way to protect America is to transform it. The bin Ladenists hunt us and mean to do us harm. But the Bush administration hurts us by trying to change who we are. ...

posted by amberglow at 6:02 PM on July 3, 2006


Two words:
John Rawls.
posted by Unregistered User at 7:14 PM on July 3, 2006


No one commented on the first link.

Douglass is windbag. His writing and speeches tend to glaze over my eyes and leave me playing air drums as he continues to blow and blow before finally getting to the point. Sure, some of it's beautiful, but is it really worth all the crap you have to wade through to get there?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:20 PM on July 3, 2006


"Nothing about degrees, Smed" - posted by swell
Degrees of argument strength. It ain't complicated.

But any argument I'd present would be wrong, because I was wrong from initial premises - so, end of story.
I do get into mental shorthand/STNG metaphor "Darmok and jelad at tenagra" and skip ahead, so I can see where it can be misleading. Others engage in informal speech however and don't catch shit for it. I don't see why I should. Particularly after apologizing.

"It's disingenuous at best to say that there is bipartisan opposition to the VRA itself; as you did above (twice)." - posted by swell

Where did I do that - twice?
I believe I acknowleged the correction(s) and apologized. And made a self-effacing remark - and then another one on down.

"That's according to the link you provided; I assume you read it." - posted by swell

Where exactly the fuck do I deserve this attitude?

What part of conceding the mistake and apologizing and then joking about it - twice - do you not understand?
You have a problem with me, then fucking say something and bring it the fuck on.

Otherwise admit YOU were wrong about my saying it twice, acknowlege that I said I was wrong, or shut the fuck up.

I'm tired of being a fucking target for asshead who refuse to read anything.

Or is that not clear enough for you?
posted by Smedleyman at 7:22 PM on July 3, 2006


Douglass is windbag. His writing and speeches tend to glaze over my eyes and leave me playing air drums as he continues to blow and blow before finally getting to the point.

Oh, but I would be willing to bet had you heard it perhaps, instead of read it, it would have been quite poetic in it's delivery and cadence. One must not merely read the words, one must hear them in their bowels. From the pain of subterfuge. That is how the meme 'truth to power' really works.
posted by Unregistered User at 8:02 PM on July 3, 2006


Ah... I remember that episode. Classic.

@Brandon Blatcher: You're of course welcome to your opinion, but I think many people would disagree with you. Personally, I can't relate at all to your description of having to wade through crap to get to a point. Perhaps you should change the wikipedia article on him to include that, 'cause this is how it starts out:
Douglass was among the most prominent African Americans of his time, and one of the most influential lecturers and authors in American history.
A fun story:
At Lincoln's memorial, Douglass was in the audience as a tribute to Lincoln was being given by a prominent lawyer at the time. The tribute was not as successful as some of the audience there would have hoped. Resultantly Douglass was goaded by the people to stand up and speak. At first out of respect for the speaker he declined but eventually he gave into the pressure and with no preparation he gave a fantastic tribute to the President he had so much respect for. The crowd, roused by his speech gave him a standing ovation. A witness later said: "I have heard Clay speak and many fantastic men, but never have I heard a speech as impressive as that." Whilst this is anecdotal, it is a commonly accepted fact that Lincoln's wife gave to Douglass Lincoln's favorite walking stick which to this day resides in Cedar Lodge. This is both a testimony to the success of Douglass' tribute to Lincoln and also to the effect and influence of his powerful oratory.
posted by ryran at 8:11 PM on July 3, 2006


Oh, but I would be willing to bet had you heard it perhaps, instead of read it, it would have been quite poetic in it's delivery and cadence

Perhaps. Douglass could clearly talk and talk well. But i've read or tried to read some of his writing and it's the same: you see his point coming from a mile off and then have to trudge that mile to get there.

Now, things might have been different back then, when tv and radio didn't exist and going to hear a man talk was truly an event.

But these days, he just makes my ears bleed. His point is an excellent one though: However great America may be, its intial use of slavery has left an ugly stain on the counry and will probably continue to do so for centuries.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:12 PM on July 3, 2006


/sorry to the rest of you all for taking up space to say that. Just got my goat.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:17 PM on July 3, 2006


'sokay Smedley. I'd say you were justified in posting that.

@Brandon: Okay. I can take that wording a little better. :)
posted by ryran at 8:25 PM on July 3, 2006


(smedleyman quoting bardic)
“The Republican blockage of VRA renewal is a travesty”

(smedleyman from here)
*coughBipartisanoppositioncough*
That's the first.
mistersix - there are degrees, but yeah, my mistake. Apologies bardic.
(That whole ‘pre-clear’ thing totally distracted me)
That's the second. I interpreted that as "degrees of bipartisan opposition", which on another reading, still seems like a reasonable interpretation.
Degrees of argument strength.
I don't understand this, nor do I understand what the link to Cogency has to do with it. The STNG metaphor makes no sense to me, but I'm not that familiar with that show.
acknowlege that I said I was wrong,
I quoted it both here and above, "there are degrees". So, yes, I acknowledge that.

My "assume you read it" sentence was uncalled for, and I was assheaded as you say. I apologize.
posted by swell at 8:29 PM on July 3, 2006


"I interpreted that as "degrees of bipartisan opposition", which on another reading, still seems like a reasonable interpretation."

Yeah, I ceded that it's vulnerable to misinterpretation. But then you must be reading the apology and the "my mistake" as irony.
Not trying to be snarky here, but you must really think I'm an asshole. I did outline what I meant.
You don't want to take my word for it, I don't know what to tell you.

So - (all references are from wiki - for expediancy on both aour parts) from the cogency link: "The degree of an argument's cogency, then, is a function of the argument's strength."

I tend to argue by analogy
(scroll down to argument from analogy). I was prepared to argue that the Democrats were similar to the Republicans regarding this matter because - on whatever grounds - they were in opposition as well:
P is similar to Q.
P has attribute A.
therefore
Q has attribute A.

I was prepared to argue that the grounds for opposition whatever they may be, in this particular instance, weren't relevant.
That the social order had been established and to oppose this would be antithetical to a conservative position (mine) - that is the government attempting to retcon society in this case.

The inductive strength of an inductive argument is the degree to which the premises support the conclusion.

Devoid of content, my argument is structurally sound. If the Democrats are holding up the bill then they are like Republicans in that attribute. And there are degrees of argument there, whether on a historical basis or philosophical, etc.

But, my premise is completely factually wrong. The Democrats are not holding up the bill. So it doesn't matter how well-built or solid my logic is, it's based on my factual error.

Which leads to addressing the next point:


"The STNG metaphor makes no sense to me, but I'm not that familiar with that show." - swell

I very often use metaphorical language thanks in part to Taoism, but also thanks to reading too much Joyce (puns, references - etc) - indeed - my scientology pun here is one of those (clear/pre-clear), and as my head is full of this stuff I get caught between the Scylla (Scalia) of banality and understatement and being misunderstood that way and the Charybdis (Coulter, because of Thetis) of writing too much, dominating the focus, bringing in too many outside references, etc. (the Odyssey/Ulysses references from Joyce obviously). That and wrestling with my own ego. I enjoy positive attention like anyone else. But, y'know, GYOFB. (sorry, wiki didn't have that) - is what people would say to me.
So, not being Joe Blogger, I tend to muddle through with a shorthand of occasional references et.al. which if you don't know them, you aren't going to get where I'm coming from - which is typically integral to any argument I make - such as in the Star Trek Next Generation (STNG) episode "Darmok"


Lawyers tend to do the same thing when the reference cases and such.
So I often engage in a kind of mental shorthand. Sometimes it's too short or obscure to be useful (f'rinstance - your unfamiliarity with STNG) and sometimes I overexplain myself.
This is not to justify any of this as proper or efficient communication, it simply is. (And I'm working on sharpening up.)

My thinking at the start of this thread was predicated on the initial situation surrounding the 1965 vote on the Voting Rights Act in which the Southern democrats argued (among other things) the government had no right to meddle in party primary elections. I thought that some Democrats (given the thinking on Gay marriage, et.al) might be opposing the act to politically move Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s proposed amendment to establish a Constitutional right to vote to the fore.

But again, despite the myriad goofy acts commited in the name of politics, and my certainty that such an act warrented criticism, my premise was all wrong.

That was/is not at all what ws going on.

"I was assheaded as you say. I apologize." - posted by swell

Fair enough. I myself never make mistakes.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:59 PM on July 3, 2006


/Sorry - Coulter, because she's antithetical to Thetis
posted by Smedleyman at 11:03 PM on July 3, 2006


/sorry to the rest of you all for taking up space to say that.

I'm going to assume that one's a joke. I've never seen anyone who actually stayed on Metafilter for any length of time take up so much whitespace before. Your, er, unique textual style, predicated as it seems to be on use of the ENTER key, makes it almost impossible for me, at least, to read your comments without scowling and mumbling and paying more attention to the paragraph layout than the content of what you're actually saying. I'm weird that way, though, I admit. [/tangent]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:48 AM on July 4, 2006


stavrosthewonderchicken : "take up so much whitespace before"

Obviously, you mean bluespace.
posted by graventy at 9:53 AM on July 4, 2006


A windbag? Good Gawd that we had some now. This is brilliant:

Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ringbolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

and

We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child's share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have "Abraham to our father," when they had long lost Abraham's faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham's great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchers of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men shout-"We have Washington to our father."-Alas! that it should be so; yet it is.

The evil, that men do, lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bon


History needs to kick our butt and take names and prosecute to the full extent of the law--perhaps it needs to be International Law at this dark point.
posted by wordswinker at 4:55 PM on July 4, 2006


in praise of US Grant--...But here's why it's important to remember and honor Grant. While Grant didn't succeed in creating the racially just nation that he sought, his legacy was a memory of a short time when blacks did have equal rights and elected their own representatives to state and federal government -- a memory that would fuel a new civil rights movement in coming years.
And it's worth remembering that it was the democratic will of the country to have that equality, that it was only anti-democratic racist violence and a rightwing court system that frustrated that American ideal. . ...

posted by amberglow at 6:01 PM on July 4, 2006


Douglass's speech is brilliant. Long, as all speeches of the time were - people had patience, but not over blown. Just the right rhetorical touch - he needed to hammer his points home.
posted by jb at 4:42 AM on July 5, 2006


Obviously, you mean bluespace.

Heh. I wrote that comment at work, where I use the plain text style.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:03 AM on July 6, 2006


« Older Pete Seeger on Democracy Now!...  |  Keep your balls in check:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments