Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Egyptian Christians riot after swine flu cull
Egyptian farmers block the streets to prevent health ministry vehicles getting past to carry out the mass-slaughter of swine
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter switching parties
SPECTER'S FULL STATEMENT
April 28, 2009
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank especially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
April 28, 2009
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank especially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Councilman removes Confederate flags from graves
Auburn Councilman Arthur L. Dowdell poses with Confederate flags that he removed from graves at Pine Hill Cemetery in Auburn.
COMMENT: It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
No fugitive slave was ever afterwards disturbed at Springfield
”The black writer William Wells Brown visited Springfield in June of 1854 and found Brown’s group at arms, ready to fight a group of slavers who were rumored to be in the area. Sentries were posted throughout all the black neighborhoods. Women were organized in “boiling water brigades,” intent on scalding any slave-catchers who tried to accost them. “Returning to the depots”, wrote William Brown, “to take the train for Boston, we found there some ten of fifteen blacks all armed to the teeth and swearing vengeance upon the heads of any who should attempt to take them. True, the slave-catchers had been there. But the authorities, foreseeing a serious outbreak, advised them to leave, and feeling alarmed for their personal safety, these disturbers of the peace had left in the evening train for New York. No fugitive slave was ever afterwards disturbed at Springfield.” “
Renehan, Edward J. The Secret Six: The True Tale of the Men Who Conspired with John Brown. 1995
Related:
The Avenging Angel By Martin Duberman, This article appeared in the May 23, 2005 edition of The Nation.
John Brown in Massachusetts by Franklin Sanborn, Atlantic Monthly 1872.04
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Rev. J. W. Loguen, as a Slave and as a Freeman. A Narrative of Real Life:
TO THE FRIENDS
OF THE
UNDER GROUND RAIL ROAD
IN
AMERICA AND EUROPE
The subject of this book has had the charge of the Under Ground Rail Road at Syracuse for many years-- therefore we dedicate it to the friends of that Road on both sides of the water, hoping they will be charitable to its blemishes and defects, and countenance its circulation to the extent of its merits.
THE EDITOR.
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1859, by
REV. J. W. LOGUEN,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States
for the Northern District of New York.
OF THE
UNDER GROUND RAIL ROAD
IN
AMERICA AND EUROPE
The subject of this book has had the charge of the Under Ground Rail Road at Syracuse for many years-- therefore we dedicate it to the friends of that Road on both sides of the water, hoping they will be charitable to its blemishes and defects, and countenance its circulation to the extent of its merits.
THE EDITOR.
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1859, by
REV. J. W. LOGUEN,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States
for the Northern District of New York.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Christopher Rush 1777 - 1873
A Short Account of the Rise and Progress of the African M. E. Church in America,
Written by Christopher Rush, Superintendent of the Connexion, with the Aid of George Collins.
Also, a Concise View of Church Order or Government, from Scripture, and from
Some of the Best Authors on the Subject of Church Government, Relative to Episcopacy:
Bishop Christopher Rush, author and prominent leader in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (A.M.E.Z.) Church, was born in 1777 in Craven County, North Carolina. He moved to New York in 1798. Rush became a member of the Church in 1803. He was licensed to preach in 1815, and he received his ordination in 1822. On May 18, 1828, he was elected Bishop of the A.M.E.Z. Church.
Rush wrote and published the "Rise and Progress of the A. M. E. Zion Church" in 1843. Bishop Christopher Rush died in 1873.
Written by Christopher Rush, Superintendent of the Connexion, with the Aid of George Collins.
Also, a Concise View of Church Order or Government, from Scripture, and from
Some of the Best Authors on the Subject of Church Government, Relative to Episcopacy:
Bishop Christopher Rush, author and prominent leader in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (A.M.E.Z.) Church, was born in 1777 in Craven County, North Carolina. He moved to New York in 1798. Rush became a member of the Church in 1803. He was licensed to preach in 1815, and he received his ordination in 1822. On May 18, 1828, he was elected Bishop of the A.M.E.Z. Church.
Rush wrote and published the "Rise and Progress of the A. M. E. Zion Church" in 1843. Bishop Christopher Rush died in 1873.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Report: DNA sample from Herman Thomas' office matches one of his accusers
Battle of Calebee
History of Alabama and dictionary of Alabama biography
By Thomas McAdory Owen
CALEBEE, BATTLE OF. An engagement between the Georgia militia, under Gen. Floyd, and the Creek Indians, January 27, 1814, on Calebee Creek, about 7 miles from the present town of Tuskegee, Macon County. After the battle of Autossee, November 29, 1813, and his retreat to Fort Mitchell, Gen. Floyd remained inactive about 6 weeks. On receiving necessary supplies, and recruiting his forces, with about 1,227 men, a company of cavalry, and 400 friendly Indians, he set out on another campaign. He moved along the line of the old federal road, establishing Fort Bainbridge in Russell, and Fort Hull in the Macon County. News was received that the Indians were fortifying themselves in large numbers at Hoithlewallee. On January 26 he encamped in a pine forest, upon the high land bordering Calebee Swamp. The hostile Indians were on the same date encamped in what was subsequently known as McGlrth's Still House branch. Here they held a council. Their numbers had increased to 1,800 warriors, probably the largest force assembled during the Creek war. Many were without guns, and were armed with war-clubs,
bows and arrows. William Weatherford was present and addressed the council. He proposed that the Indians wait until Gen. Floyd's army had crossed Calebee Creek. Weather- ford's advice was rejected, and he left the council, and started back to Polecat Spring. About an hour and a half before daybreak on the morning of January 27, the Indians stealthily approached the camp, fired upon the sentinels and made a fierce rush upon the main body. A general action immediately followed. Although surprised. Gen. Floyd's troops were quickly organized, and with the aid of the cannon repulsed them. The Indians made desperate efforts to capture the cannon, and in consequence the artillerymen suffered very severely. While the redsticks were thus bravely fighting, the friendly Indians with the exception of Capt. Timpochee Barnard and his Uchees, acted in a cowardly way. About daylight Gen. Floyd reorganized his lines, and ordered a general charge. The Indians gave way before the bayonet, and they were pursued through the swamp by the cavalry, by some of the rifle companies and by some of the friendly Indians. The Indian losses are not known, but 70 bodies were found upon the field. The American loss was 17 killed, and 132 wounded. The friendly Indians lost 5 killed and 15 wounded.
The unexpected engagement on the Calebee thwarted Gen. Floyd's designs against Hoithlewallee. He thereupon retreated to Fort Hull, in which he left a small garrison. He then returned to Fort Mitchell. After the withdrawal of Gen. Floyd the Creeks took possession of the battlefield. The retreat and abandonment of the campaign gave the Indians the impression that they had won the victory.
References.—Russell, History of the Late War (1815), p. 242; Brackenrldge, History of the Late War (1844), p. 193; White, Historical Collections of Georgia (1855), pp. 290-292; Pick- ett, History of Alabama (Owen's ed., 1900), pp. 584-586; Woodward, Reminiscences of the Creek Indians (1859), pp. 101, 102; The Atlanta Constitution, April 30, 1905.
By Thomas McAdory Owen
CALEBEE, BATTLE OF. An engagement between the Georgia militia, under Gen. Floyd, and the Creek Indians, January 27, 1814, on Calebee Creek, about 7 miles from the present town of Tuskegee, Macon County. After the battle of Autossee, November 29, 1813, and his retreat to Fort Mitchell, Gen. Floyd remained inactive about 6 weeks. On receiving necessary supplies, and recruiting his forces, with about 1,227 men, a company of cavalry, and 400 friendly Indians, he set out on another campaign. He moved along the line of the old federal road, establishing Fort Bainbridge in Russell, and Fort Hull in the Macon County. News was received that the Indians were fortifying themselves in large numbers at Hoithlewallee. On January 26 he encamped in a pine forest, upon the high land bordering Calebee Swamp. The hostile Indians were on the same date encamped in what was subsequently known as McGlrth's Still House branch. Here they held a council. Their numbers had increased to 1,800 warriors, probably the largest force assembled during the Creek war. Many were without guns, and were armed with war-clubs,
bows and arrows. William Weatherford was present and addressed the council. He proposed that the Indians wait until Gen. Floyd's army had crossed Calebee Creek. Weather- ford's advice was rejected, and he left the council, and started back to Polecat Spring. About an hour and a half before daybreak on the morning of January 27, the Indians stealthily approached the camp, fired upon the sentinels and made a fierce rush upon the main body. A general action immediately followed. Although surprised. Gen. Floyd's troops were quickly organized, and with the aid of the cannon repulsed them. The Indians made desperate efforts to capture the cannon, and in consequence the artillerymen suffered very severely. While the redsticks were thus bravely fighting, the friendly Indians with the exception of Capt. Timpochee Barnard and his Uchees, acted in a cowardly way. About daylight Gen. Floyd reorganized his lines, and ordered a general charge. The Indians gave way before the bayonet, and they were pursued through the swamp by the cavalry, by some of the rifle companies and by some of the friendly Indians. The Indian losses are not known, but 70 bodies were found upon the field. The American loss was 17 killed, and 132 wounded. The friendly Indians lost 5 killed and 15 wounded.
The unexpected engagement on the Calebee thwarted Gen. Floyd's designs against Hoithlewallee. He thereupon retreated to Fort Hull, in which he left a small garrison. He then returned to Fort Mitchell. After the withdrawal of Gen. Floyd the Creeks took possession of the battlefield. The retreat and abandonment of the campaign gave the Indians the impression that they had won the victory.
References.—Russell, History of the Late War (1815), p. 242; Brackenrldge, History of the Late War (1844), p. 193; White, Historical Collections of Georgia (1855), pp. 290-292; Pick- ett, History of Alabama (Owen's ed., 1900), pp. 584-586; Woodward, Reminiscences of the Creek Indians (1859), pp. 101, 102; The Atlanta Constitution, April 30, 1905.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Jabba the Nut - Boston Phoenix
RUSH LIMBAUGH
JABBA THE NUT
America’s ugliest moment of 2009? Rush Limbaugh, his man-boobs a-jiggle, bouncing at the CPAC podium to bask in the sickly glow of conservatism’s orgy of greed, avarice, and arrogance. Here, at last, was the shining image of the 21st century Republican Party: a leeringly rich Baby Boomer squatting at the top of the mountain, reaping his jollies from the suffering of those at the bottom, praying for the failure of hope. If this hypocritical and morally repugnant reformed Oxy junkie wants to discuss “failure,” maybe we should talk about his career as an NFL commentator — or the last time he detoxed off prescription smack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)