Morning Reads – Thursday, October 2, 2014

On this day in 1924, the Geneva Protocol adopted the League of Nations. Bleh

Jimmy Carter

Sweet Tea

Liberty Drum


  1. drjay says:

    interesting that miss swafford seems to imply she would have probably have rather run for a “smaller office” like the state legislature or county commission were it not for our fair states draconion ballot access laws…

  2. blakeage80 says:

    The Perspicacious Conservative (I can’t believe I spelled that right the first time, no spell check needed) talks in his last paragraph about his establishment friends being proud of him recommending a moderate voice being the champion of religious liberty. The only problem is once that voice starts to take up that cause, it is no longer moderate. Maybe he meant someone that doesn’t sound like the John Boy and Billy Show’s Mad Max. Always screaming about some issue and ending it with “Quit ruinin’ mah lahf!”
    The other side of the religious liberty coin is deciding what is legitimate religious practice and what is just a gathering of nuts praying to their collection of naval lint or breaking state and or federal law. Think about the Nuwaubians or why fundamentalist Mormons can’t technically have multiple wives. Make no mistake, that has to be decided or anyone, in theory, could do any horrible thing and attribute it their religion for immunity.
    I think that it is impossible for America to truly be all things to all people. We were founded with a certain culture because the Founders all had a similar world view. There were good and bad parts, but it was distinct and there is nothing wrong with having a distinct culture. America could have a distinct culture while allowing those with different views to be a part, but insisting that the host culture be respected. (think about American women visiting Muslim countries and how they need to dress). However, we seem to have chosen the route of no culture at all.

    • Jessica S. says:

      He is a she and that she is me.

      That aside…the legislature is well known for using folks to get things done. Besides running for Congress, Rep. Ed Lindsey was an excellent “carrier pigeon” for HB 707 – a bill that would have gained no traction with any of the other sponsors. I was simply recommending that in this case as well.

      • blakeage80 says:

        My sincere apologies for the gender error. I won’t try to blame auto correct.

        I was thinking more on a national scale, when some media outlets start following conservative causes being pushed, (especially religious conservative causes) the messenger, no matter his/her prior reputation would be brand with all sorts of derogatory monikers. But I am a pessimist.

        I do agree with your point of reasonable voices needing to be put forward on many divisive issues.

        • greencracker says:

          “America could have a distinct culture while allowing those with different views to be a part, but insisting that the host culture be respected. (think about American women visiting Muslim countries and how they need to dress)”

          “Host” culture? Once somebody gets/is born to U.S. citizenship, they are as much a “host” as every single other American. And what if the co-hostess wears a hijab? Well it’s equally her party just as much as it is mine and yours.

          Sure, when I visited Indonesia, I wore long sleeves and pants in keeping with their relatively modest dress (no headscarf — the women there go both with and without.) But I was a visitor. I don’t have a say in how they host their party.

          Definitely I’m for laws against Nuabians, but they’re easily covered by laws banning child sexual abuse. We don’t have a law against tying a cloth to your head.

          • blakeage80 says:

            You have not characterized my previous post correctly. I am not saying any American should be shunned or that they aren’t ‘Real Americans’ because they don’t look or think like me. I understand how our laws regarding citizenship work. I am saying that trying to be all things, to all people, all the time is causing societal chaos. One minute a baker can refuse service to people in order to follow their religious beliefs, the next second, they are forced to shut down because they can’t pay a government fine and punitive damages to the offended party. Enforced tolerance for everything is not religious liberty, nor is religious liberty absolute (reference the Nuwaubian example). However, since America has lost a lot of what made its culture distinct (trying to be everything to everybody), it has no solid basis from which to prudently limit that liberty. Instead it is decided based on an ever evolving sense of what a few people in the judiciary think is right and wrong.

            • greencracker says:

              I dunno, I look around and I don’t see “societal chaos.”

              Of the things that make our culture distinct, I think diversity is definitely one that adds an awesome strand. Another, less awesome strand, might be litigiousness. 😉

  3. Ellynn says:


    Question. How is the city of Savannah, which is legally buying the land from the owner – who was not forced to sell, more like the city asked, they named a price, city said ok – an Eminent Domain issue? If a private citzen bought an appartment building and then gave legal notice that the lease agreements were void, this would not be an issue.

    They real issue here is the city is disreguarding their own historical structure standards for preservation of structures. They hold private owners to standards in the name of protecting the interest of the city (AKA tourist money) yet ingore them when it suuits their agenda. I personally think is a bad location for the builing is relation to how it will be used by the city. Plus it sets a tone of under protecting structures in the historically segregated urban areas of the last century.

    By the way, Bill Dawers has some very good writing on this for his City Talk column, and also on his blog.

  4. Will Durant says:

    Many people don’t realize that at one time it was legal to gamble in Georgia as long as it wasn’t under a roof. With this we had gambling in the bleachers at Ponce de Leon Park though by the time I came along it had been made illegal though the tradition continued with elaborate hand signals. Long way around the horn to get to the picture that formed in my mind with the link regarding Tech allowing Bitcoin at the games. In my mind I saw a bunch of gamblers waving smartphones at each other as the modern replacement of the finger signals at the Crackers games. I have no doubt if this was allowed that they would never struggle to fill up Grant Field ever again.

    • xdog says:

      Following up, any state could raise serious revenue if they ever tapped into the sports gambling market. Forget lotteries and slots, just legalize betting 11 to win 10 on ball games.

      • Will Durant says:

        The hypocrisy in our laws concerning gambling knows no bounds. Unless they are the ones running the book the only interest the State should have in wagers placed between consenting adults would be in collecting their taxes. Who stands to benefit the most if sports betting remains illegal? Other than nomenclature how does betting on the spread of a football game differ from buying puts and calls on whether the S&P index is going to go up or down?

    • Ellynn says:

      2012 saw a high number property break ins in remote little Swainsboro. I know one business alone that was broken into 3 time in 7 months. They also have a high number of domestic assult cases and drug arrests. If you have a city of 9,000 that reports 10 major crimes and a city of 90,000 that reports 90 crimes, the smaller city will have the higher crime rate per capitia.

Comments are closed.