Morning Reads–How Do They Keep Getting Better?

thumbLast week had the much-heralded and much-beloved best MRs ever, and now I’m going one better. Young Man with “In Time” and Husker Du with “Celebrated Summer.”

Also, happy May Day to my fellow working men and women. Down with the capitalist fat cats!

Could link to like, maybe 207 more articles but I shan’t.


  1. Stefan says:

    I got you some umlauts for your birthday, here you go: Hüsker Dü. Of course, the umlauts are wrong and it should be Hūsker Dū, because the words are Danish, not German, but the band members were from Minnesota so…

    • Ed says:

      Being Minnesotan, they should have been even more in touch with all things Germanic!

      When I met Bob Mould I told him: “I’m a big fan of Danish board games.” He laughed.

      • Stefan says:

        That’s amusing. Also, that Buzzfeed article is totally worthless. Again. The hotness quotient is based on what percentage of profile pictures of that particular University’s students were “saved” on some sort of online dating profile site. How creepy is that? Except it’s actually par of a marketing campaign for a New York invested site. NYU and Columbia have other 3k students on the web site each, UVa? 30? GSU? NINE.

        Based on what likely gets saved, it should be a ranking of universities whose “students have the worst online judgment”.

  2. There was another one in Lawrenceville last September. I need to use those skills I learned catching crocs with Steve Irwin, God Rest His Soul.

  3. penguin says:

    Karen Handel: if only Komen had focused its efforts on that “scientifically proven” link between abortion and breast cancer, then it would really be making a difference.

    • Ed says:

      This is an intriguing position. I would like to encourage your further participation on this website.


  4. bgsmallz says:

    Can I suggest that it is possible this article is the canary in the coalmine on what will be a much larger issue over the next 5 to 10 years along the top end RE: 285?

    The population in the census districts along the top end has ballooned over the past decade by 20%, 30% and even 70% to 80% in some cases. You have a perception issue…first that many of the problems on the top end are caused by drivers from other counties or areas (Cobb, N. Fulton, and Gwinnett) while those same drivers rejected any solution that would put expanded interstates in their area (Northern Arc) and/or continue to reject any form of transit (whether that be through T-Splost or otherwise). Plus, prior to Dec 1, 2005, none of the required ROW acquisitions existed in municipalities…except a small slice in Doraville. Now that stretch is 100% in municipalities…Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Brookhaven, Chamblee (through annexation), and Doraville. What in 2005 were ranch homes, strip malls, and vacant lots are now McMansions, master-planned live-work-play sites, and future city halls….surrounded by larger local communities with large local voices through their city governments who don’t necessarily want a larger road to support those in the outer burbs.

    Just a thought. Happy Wednesday!

    • John Konop says:

      Interesting issue……should this not be up to stock holders? I do support full disclosure of campaign donations…….but using this rule is not the way to fix the problem……this clearly is a stock holder issue not the government……end around concept usually creats more issues not less in the future……

  5. SallyForth says:

    I haven’t posted on P/P for a while, but this madness about Stone Mountain brought me out. I remember as a kid hearing my parents and other adults talk about all the fundraisers held to help pay for having those carvings done by the same artist who did Mount Rushmore. They even held a cocktail party on the shoulder of General Robert E. Lee, lowered guests down from the top of the mountain. Creating that historic carving was a huge Atlanta community effort that took many years to complete, and it honors Southern heroes from an era when neither the North or the South was totally right on the issue of you-know-what. We are Southerners and we own our history, all the good and all the bad – the Stone Mountain carvings should no more be destroyed than destroying the statue of Crazy Horse, the Holocaust Museum, or the Viet Nam wall.

    But if you go back and read the facts, I don’t think the people fussing now would be too happy about the North’s concept of “emancipation”, which was to put Africans and their descendents on ships and send them back to Africa. To free them in the colony of Liberia that Lincoln, Monroe, Clay,, had already established for that purpose – or to let them choose to go the Caribbean islands or S. America to what is now Belize, if they so wished. Read some of Lincoln’s campaign speeches on the subject, and it will make your eyes pop out!

    History is history, good and bad – and when it’s bad, there is usually enough blame to go around. Reality is that Stone Mountain was owned by the grandfather of a guy I went to school with, and without the generosity of their family and thousands of other native Georgians, we would not have that beautiful state park today (well, except for the Dollywood part). Everyone should go out and walk around the base of the carvings to read all the quotations carved into the pave stones there. It is enlightening. If anyone doesn’t like the carvings up above, don’t look at them.

    Like Lewis Grizzard always said, “Delta is ready when you are.”

    • sockpuppet says:

      “If anyone doesn’t like the carvings up above, don’t look at them. Like Lewis Grizzard always said, “Delta is ready when you are.”

      And do you take the same stance on things that you are personally offended by? Or do you reserve the right to be offended and act on that offense when it comes to things that you don’t like and only take the “if you don’t like it then hit the road” stance to things that you like and support?

      People who take positions like that should never complain about or be offended by anything. Ever. But since we know that such people do, it isn’t an honest position to take.

      “I don’t think the people fussing now would be too happy about the North’s concept of “emancipation”, which was to put Africans and their descendents on ships and send them back to Africa.”

      That was Lincoln’s position. It was a minority viewpoint, which is why the effort to send blacks to Africa died when Lincoln died, and which is why the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments passed. Had most or even any significant percentage of northerners wanted to send the former slaves out of the country, the amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights and other equal rights under the law would have never been enacted. By contrast, the vast majority of the south supported slavery, and also supported Jim Crow when slavery ended. Now the purpose of this is not to refight the Civil War, but only to point out that your claim “We are Southerners and we own our history, all the good and all the bad” simply lacks facts, just as most southern revisionism does. Pointing out the flaws of the north is a very long way from being about to accurately claim that “the north was just as bad as we were!” moral equivalency.

      Incidentally, the southrons need to acknowledge that had the Confederacy won the Civil War – or had the Union allowed the Confederacy to leave – the Confederacy would have been in extremely dire economic straits. The Confederacy had an unworkable economic system (not the capitalist libertarian paradise that the modern revisionists claim), the lack of know-how to create a new one, and would have had no chance of competing against far more industrialized economies in the Union and western Europe, and would have enjoyed no real advantage over the agrarian economies in Latin America. Also, the slavery issue would have left the Confederacy politically – which means economically – isolated as France, Britain and the Union would have applied pressure for the Confederacy to emancipate, which of course the Confederacy would have resisted as long as possible out of pride and principle. And as economic conditions deteriorated, social conditions would have too. The Confederacy was fighting to preserve an economic and social system that would have inevitably collapsed anyway, and in a rapid and calamitous fashion at that. (And by the way, would the Confederates have been any less willing to ship blacks to Africa as some northerners were when things went bad? Why? Because the Confederates liked black people more than the Union did or something? Please. The Confederates would have forced all the blacks out at the barrel of a gun, Cherokee Trail of Tears style, as soon as things started to go bad.) Southrons would do well to acknowledge this truth and simply move on.

      • SallyForth says:

        @ Ed, you misquoted – what I wrote was “neither the North or the South was totally right on the issue of you-know-what.” Methinks that around 150+ years ago in our nation, there definitely was enough blame to go around.

        @sockpuppet, to answer your question “And do you take the same stance on things that you are personally offended by?” – yes, especially if it is something that is part of history and created by artisans at great expense by people who lived roughly 100 years ago, it doesn’t matter if modern-day me is offended. I have the right to selectively avoid anything that offends me, e.g., avoiding much of today’s illiterate and obscene lyrics of some so-called music. I actually enjoy visiting the northern U.S. (as well as the western part of our country) and seeing their statues, carvings, and other historic places indigenous to each area and their ancestors – I just wish northerners could feel the same respect when they come down here.

        The rest of your post is some of the best revisionist “history” I’ve ever seen. For example, the Confederacy had nothing to do with the Trail of Tears forced removal of Native Americans from their home lands. U.S. federal troops removed (as you say, “at the barrel of a gun”) not only the Cherokees, but also Creeks, Seminoles, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, along with others throughout the continent, forced them to reservations in what is today Oklahoma, under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. And, by the way, Europe, and particularly France, actually supported the Confederacy and its efforts at independence. At the beginning of the war, the Confederate States of America comprised one of, if not the wealthiest nations in the world – but after the Yanks violently destroyed its rail system and infrastructure, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its people, burned their cities and homes to the ground and literally stole their gold, silver, and other assets, it was left pretty much destitute and had to rebuild itself under dire conditions.

        Contrary to revisionist theory, the Confederate States actually outlawed slavery before the War began, which the northern states refused to do to that point. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 & 2, of the Confederate Constitution adopted in February 1861:
        ” (1) The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
        (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.”

        These clauses combined prohibit the importation of slaves, even from the Northern states where slavery was still active also, and remained that way in the North after the War was over. I look back roughly 150 years ago and feel sure the people of the 1800’s were (to say the least) in a big quandary trying to figure how to handle the mess that all of America had made, but it is clear in their founding documents that one of the things the South had done when they seceded was to outlaw the slave trade.

        Atlanta’s symbol of the Phoenix means literally “Up from the ashes,” which our ancestors did during the 100 years following the Civil War. And they did such a great job that now we are flooded with people from all over the country, who want our climate and quality of life – but who have no respect or care for how it all actually came to be. Like Grizzard said………

    • Ed says:

      ” the South was totally right on the issue of you-know-what.”

      The South was partially right on the issue of slavery?

      • SallyForth says:

        Ed, see my above response re what the Constitution of the Confederate States of America actually said/did about stopping slavery in the Confederate states. Those dudes were by no means perfect (especially by our standards today) but looks like they were ahead of their counterparts in the Union.

        • Ed says:

          It maintained the status quo.

          And as long as you want to uphold the subjugation of an entire group of humans merely because of their relative levels of pigment, you don’t have a sound ethical footing for too much else, regardless of how well-meaning it is. (And it isn’t just the issue of slavery, it was the culture that went along with it that was so truly abhorrent).

          So yes, sorry if I call complete bull**** on your attempts to whitewash what the South did because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

          • SallyForth says:

            Hey, hey, now – watch your language! Back up and re-read what I wrote. I am in no way attempting to whitewash anything — slavery is a terrible thing that has sadly been part of world history since ancient Egypt, Europe, Roman Empire, Africa, etc. Disgustingly, it is still going on in Africa and other parts of today’s world. By the American 1800’s, it is clear that our whole nation had created a mess by bringing the practice of slavery with them from Europe in the 1500 & 1600’s.

            My point is that slavery was common practice in the culture of both the North and the South of 1860, and it was/is hypocritical to pretend that it only existed in the South. How about the outrageous enumeration language in the U.S. Constitution that counts slaves as 3/5 of a person was vehemently opposed by the Southern members of Congress? But Northern members insisted that they were “property just like mules and cattle” and should not be counted at all as part of the official population numbers! The South lost that political fight too, and in about 1780 the North considered it a compromise to put in the 3/5 language.

            When they seceded and returned to commonwealth status, the Confederate Constitution was almost an exact copy of the Union Constitution. The Confederate Congress just changed the word “United” into “Confederate” wherever it appeared, and actually said the word “slave” and “slavery” in the above cited additional part, instead of obliquely as had been done in the U.S. Constitution. There were 15 changes made, and all except two of those had nothing to do with slavery. Other than the changes above outlawing importation of slaves, the other 13 CSA Constitution changes dealt with limiting the power of the federal government, specifically limits on how the Congress was permitted to spend money, plus giving the President veto power and instituting term limits. The “sovereign and independent character” of each state was made clear, and the new Constitution prevented the federal government from levying protective tariffs, making internal changes in any state, or overruling state court decisions. All of this makes clear that the War was actually about the totality of states’ rights – slavery was only one of many factors that caused the states to secede.

            It is easy for purveyors of disinformation and misdirection to simply write off the Civil War as being about only slavery – that way they never have to address any of the meaty concerns above, which still dog our nation today. (Term limits, controls on federal spending, legislating from the bench, etc.) But to avoid huge unaddressed concerns then and now, it’s “Hey! Look over here – slavery!!” Disinformation and misdirection work well, and over a century and a half later, very few people go to the trouble of studying, and most simply accept half-truths or fiction in books or movies “based on history.”

            I think we are agreed in 2013 that slavery was abhorrent in all parts of the continent for the 300 or so years it existed. Hundreds of thousands of good people (most of whom never had any slaves) gave their lives for principles of the Confederacy (state’s rights on all issues) and for the Union ( per Lincoln, to “quell the rebellion”). Unless we are to now go around the nation and destroy historical sites in every part of our country, we need to leave Stone Mountain alone. How about just letting everybody honor the dead and move on?

Comments are closed.