Home » Blog » Thomas Paine for Today!
Blog for America
Thomas Paine for Today!
Learning of my cousin's newest book my thoughts traveled back to those early days of Howard Dean's campaign, when his call to citizen-action had been inspired by Thomas Paine and Common Sense. In answer to my question, "How did you come to write a book about Tom Paine?" Craig answered,"I wrote about Paine because I thought a lot of Americans would be interested in a founding-of-the-nation story that had nothing to do with a Republican perspective. I was WRONG, but at least the reviews and awards are nice!"
When I suggested that perhaps we had not known, as I had not, Craig added,
"You'll love at least some of the Paine book since there's a big founding father debate on the future of democracy with citizens who don't participate."
Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations by Craig Nelson is Winner of the 2007 Henry Adams Prize for the year's best book on history and government.
“Craig Nelson vividly brings to life the revolutionary spirit of Paine's ideas and ideals. From Thetford in Norfolk to New Rochelle in New York, Nelson masterly recreates the amazing career of Citizen Tom Paine, who tried to convince his age that ‘Of more worth is one honest man to society... than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.’”— Isaac Kramnick. Editor, The Thomas Paine Reader
“Thomas Paine should be required reading for all Americans, not just those interested in their country's political history and current dilemmas.”— The Bookbag
Read more reviewer comments and story background at http://craignelson.us/tompaine.html
Thomas Paine is available in multiple formats from http://amazon.com
Hello! Howard Dean is first here, always.
AN IMPOTENT AND CORRUPT CONGRESS
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dan_feje_071215_an_impotent_and_corr.htm
Congress looks like it will continue to be timid on war policy and oversight, and now appears to be complicit in torture.
On war policy, here was David Obey on October 1st:
Obey said more war funding would not be approved unless it is linked to a plan to bring home U.S. combat troops by January 2009."As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have no intention of reporting out of committee any time in this session of Congress any such (war funding) request that simply serves to continue the status quo," he said.
Now, however, war funding without timelines is fine as long as some additional spending is included. So we've gone from no war funding without timelines to some war funding without timelines provided a bargain could be struck. Based on past experience it seems safe to say this is the midpoint to the final destination of war funding without timelines, no bargains. When he first came out with his timelines requirement I was hopeful he'd stick to it even though I wasn't that familiar with him. Now I am: He is unwilling to stand behind what he says and is an all-too-typical profile in cowardice.
"I took no notes; it was five years ago; and this feeble grandma just ain't that good!" Jane Harman sums up all that is contemptible in the body with that little epigram. Consider the enormity of the betrayal conveyed in those few words. First, she took no notes. Why is that? She was told she couldn't.
Couldn't she have whipped out a legal pad and simply asserted that she required notes in order to perform her oversight role? Couldn't she have made some noise to that effect? Gone public with it if she was refused? What prompted her to be so meek and submissive on such an important issue? What is the point of oversight if those you are charged with overseeing are dictating the terms?
"[T]his feeble grandma just ain't that good." Nauseating. If she really is nothing more than a weak little old lady she needs to leave Congress immediately. Our representatives MUST be that good, Ms Harman. We depend on you to be that good precisely so we don't end up in situations like this.
Not too long ago I thought the problem was an authoritarian executive. It's much bigger than that. It's time for us to mentally write off an entire generation of leadership.
The Boston Globe editor has endorsed
Barack Obama!
The Globe endorsed John Kerry as early as October in 2004.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The DesMoines Register endorses HRC (& McCain).
Uhmm, let's see, isn't that the same newspaper that would not let Kucinich and Gravel "debate" last week? The same paper that endorsed John Edwards in 2004 and gave him a boost but got the first place winner wrong?
The DesMoines readers reactions to their endorsement are about nine to one against. Most support Obama, Edwards and some for Biden.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200771215025#gslPageReturn
scroll toward the bottom to read reactions
12:55PM
Please recommend this so it can move up:
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23302
I've finally got one of our members to post. LOL
My perception is that Ron Paul is essentially libertarian-to-anarchist in his views.
While I personally dislike hierarchies and would like to see most of them greatly flattened, there is a problem with attempting to dismantle government (as Ron Paul seems to wish) at this particular point in history.
That problem is multi-national corporations.
The multinationals rival, and in many cases exceed (eg: Niger, as an obvious case), the power and influence of national governments. And multinationals greatly exceed the power of individuals, being made up of aggregates of individuals.
They can be, in a way, a modern equivalent of feudal baronies.
If you remove the power of those governments that remain strong enough to rein in multinational corporate interests, you leave the corporations as the sole standing sources of aggregated individual power, countered only, potentially, by religious hierarchies.
As such, corporations could run roughshod over the individual interests of people and abscond with the benefits of 'the commons'--those elements of culture and environment that we all share and take for granted, such as air and water and environmental cleanliness, and infrastructures we pay for but rarely think of such as roads.
Without a government capable of enforcing the rule of law, corporations would abscond with the resources of the 'commons', justifying themselves with the thought that if they don't do so promptly, somebody else (another corporation) will.
The corporations, then, become the last surviving 'government'--and a 'government' whose primary mission isn't the welfare of the populace but is whatever mission statement has been chosen to guide the company's strategy and make the *company*, as an entity, profit. This generally translates to profit for the board of directors and the top tier of management, with little to no benefit for the 'workers'--the general populaiton.
Imnsho, if you too greatly reduce the power of government in our current environment, you'd wind up with a kind of 'financial feudalism'--corporate investment-class 'lords' at the top, and worker-serfs below--which falls somewhere in the 'fascist' spectrum (using the original definition of fascism as 'business interests running the government', which one can find in mid-20th century print dictionaries. Online dictionary definitions of this word show signs of politically-motivated drift toward greater ambiguity...)
In such a system, the 'laws' would tend to enforce maintenance of this hierarchy, the establishment of rigid classes, and reduction of the opportunity for individual 'bounders' to rise via merit (or to acquire 'merit' such as by getting a good education).
So, Ron Paul may be admirable for his idealism and a desire to restore greater autonomy (and accountability) to individuals--a goal with which I agree. But I believe the approach he has chosen--minimizing government--would ultimately prove to be counter to his goals.
5. Secrecy is corrosive. Being in on a secret is so seductive. It makes you feel special. And once you agree to participate, you're caught. If you speak up, you violate a trust; if you keep silent, you're part of what's being hidden.
Secrecy is the hand-maiden of authoritarianism and autocracy.
Back to Thomas Paine, I have to admit that I haven't read Paine's work (Common Sense et al...) and so probably should start there before reading his biography.
I think there's a widespread misunderstanding of government--understandable perhaps because of how some governors have behaved. But government isn't a coercive force, as Republicans (approvingly) seem to think. To govern is to make regular, to keep things from running away. To govern isn't to brake or inhibit action in any way. When applied to human activities, the result of government would be to insure that people take turns, for example.
There's nothing inherently threatening to humans in such a function--except, perhaps, for those humans who can't tell time and have no concept of taking turns. But, one suspects they are in the minority.
Humans band together to govern or regularize both their own and the behavior of nature, to make it more predictable and less disruptive. Given that perspective, I don't know how the antagonism towards government can be considered to be meritorious.
It's probably more correct to say that Ron Paul is antagonistic towards a system he's misapprehended because of its abuse. But, that's no reason to throw the whole thing out.
Here's one reason Harry Reid is ok with allowing immunity for telecoms.....the PPI arm of the DLC told him to do it. You know... that policy shop for Democrats... as Harold Ford called it.
PPI says Democrats should allow immunity for telecoms
Immunity is attractive to public officials because they'd like to have it back for themselves. And then, there are a few who think that giving someone immunity from the consequences of their actions wil prompt them to tell the truth. What they don't understand is the deception isn't necessarily protective; for some people it's an end in itself. Deception makes them feel powerful. I think that's why Bush Two does it.
11.
Independent Progressive wrote, "I have to admit that I haven't read Paine's work (Common Sense et al...) and so probably should start there before reading his biography."
>
I disagree. Read what interests you. If the biography sparks an interest, then, well, that's worth your time. Correct? Yes.
Thomas Paine for Today! by Pam Hoye 
Promoted Sunday, 12/16/07 @ 12:00 pm. Published Thursday, 12/13/07 @ 03:29 pm +++Paine -What do you know, the Patriots just won 20-10 versus the Jets.14-0 for the season for New England !
That Boston Globe endorsement of McCain must have just sealed the deal for Jihad Joe.
BREAKING NEWS:
December 16, 2007
Lieberman to support McCain
Sen. Lieberman will throw his support behind McCain, a senior GOP source tells CNN.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat turned Independent, will endorse Republican Sen. John McCain for president, a senior GOP official with knowledge of the plan tells CNN.
Lieberman is planning to announce his support for McCain at an early Monday morning event in New Hampshire, but the campaign is keeping a close eye on a winter storm that could force it to be rescheduled.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Linda wrote "Yeah, I'll take mature experience any day."
My favorite motivation for supporting a candidate. It's why Kerry performed so brilliantly in 2004. It also explains why Robert Dole is the platonic ideal of candidates.
audrey wrote "First the dissing of Howard, and the question of DLC membership discovered then denied, . . ."
Before I call both of these outrageous lies, I'll wait and see what proof is produced.
My condolences to those who may have been hoping for a Lieberman endorsement of Obama. I mean, what "mentor" doesn't support his own?
*r
Tough game. The Patriots are pluggin' along. One almost wants to cross one's fingers, but why rely on superstition? Not this team.
Packers v. Patriots in the Superbowl ?
Headin' out to the mall. I dislike very much how all holy days are commercialized.
18.
the Patriots just won 20-10 versus the Jets.14-0 for the season for New England !
Well, big deaL dorg!!
The Dolphins just one their first game of the season -- in OT no less -- against the Ravens. Now thats big news!
This is the same 1972 Dolphins team that was unbeaten. What a difference a measly 35 years makes:))
Yay Miami!!
Niners won last night. Nice showing from their third string QB. Da Bears are on Monday night.
joan, you do realize that the current team wasn't even born when they went undefeated???
Lieberman needs to be stripped all committee positions. Let it be - Lieberman is a traitor.
Joe's gotta go. And take John with ya.
Joan* In*Florida
The Dolphins just one their first game of the season
>
OMGosh! I didn't think they were capable. I guess I can't my Miami whine "My aaam me" any further (this season).
Congratulation to the Dolphins for avoiding a losers season (oops, they are big losers this season. Belay that.) !
22.
Denise
Lieberman's endorsement of McCain would be a big help for the Democrats next fall should McCain win the R nomination. It will certainly be the kiss of death for McCain in a general election since Lieberman represents total support for an unending war in Iraq. LIE is nobody I'd want on my stage.
20.
Tom Bearse
Sun, 12/16/07
Reply to this
Linda wrote "Yeah, I'll take mature experience any day."
My favorite motivation for supporting a candidate. It's why Kerry performed so brilliantly in 2004. It also explains why Robert Dole is the platonic ideal of candidates.
___________________
Well, Tom, if that's why you supported Kerry in 2004, L' Chaim to you!
Linda wrote "Well, Tom, if that's why you supported Kerry in 2004."
I supported Dean. In my view, mature experience means nothing.
26.
Joan, you do realize that the current team wasn't even born when they went undefeated???
No, mprov, I did not realize that! Jeesh.
BTW, I am not a Dolphin fan these days since I've lived in North Florida for many years. I support the JAX Jags who beat the Steelers today in Pittsburg during a heavy snowstorm.
Go Jags!
25.
Denise
Da Bears are my second bestest team. I love watching the QB 's, one of which played for the Gators and the other the son of Bob. Lovie, too, is always interesting to watch.
Well if the TV set up guy gets here today as planned, I'll be watching da Bears on da big screen. Will not be ordering da crappy CA pizza, though.
I hope the Packers will deliver a beating to the Patriots in the Superbowl (if they get there) althought the Pats are my third-fave team behind GB and Seattle.
--------
Good grief - what can be done about Joe Lieberman????? Is he angling for VP with McCain? If so, it won't happen.
The last time someone called a comment about Obama an outrageous lie, someone else brought proof of it in the form of his blatant (I won't call them lies) let's call them misinforming protestations.
13.
LOL...the Boston Globe Endorses McCain, TOO!
The Boston Globe is the premier Democratic newspaper these days so their endorsement of Obama can be very influencial for Dems around the country.
This paper would not want to endorse a Republican they think could actually win an election -- thus the McCain endorsement.
Edwards on C-Span right now (from earlier today).
The Boston Globe is the premier Democratic newspaper these days so their endorsement of Obama can be very influencial for Dems around the country.
This paper would not want to endorse a Republican they think could actually win an election -- thus the McCain endorsement.
______________________
Thank you. I did not know that's why the papers endorsed Republican candidates.
Joan* In*Florida
Sun, 12/16/07
...
The Boston Globe is the premier Democratic newspaper these days
...
+++
Joan -
Thanks for that comment (thus, getting my home delivery of the Sunday Boston Globe four hours late this morning -- all that darn snow -- was well worth the wait for me).
Yeah I wouldn't mind some proof, or at least a better explanation, from yesterday's comment about Obama campaigning against gays. I know there was a flap about a minister but that was the minister's opinion, not Obama's. And Obama has made a statement about the situation.
Let's be careful when choosing our words - all of us.
Regarding Lieberman: He should have been at least stripped of his committee positions when he decided to not run as a Dem. Reid took the same position then that he does with Bush. That would be total capitulation in hopes he'll be nice and not hurt him. I think he expected that Lieberman would caucus with the Dems in exchange. Imho, Reid, Chuck Shumer, and Obama, along with some other Dems are responsible for our having Repug. Lieberman instead of Dem Ned Lamont who would have kept with his campaign philosophy and voted with us.
Linda*in*SFNM
Sun, 12/16/07
+++
Linda -
It's how newspapers function -- they give out two endorsements -- one for the dem, the other for the repub.
But thanks for the attention you've given to the Boston Globe (I used to deliver it in my younger years, so I've always had a soft spot in my heart for it -- and, oh yeah, like Joan said, it's one of the most liberal and progressive major newspapers in the U.S.; their endorsement of Deval patrick helped him win the governorship here).
oops, some typos on my part, here's the corrected comment:
44.
Linda*in*SFNM
Sun, 12/16/07
+++
Linda -
It's how newspapers function -- they give out two endorsements during the primary season -- one for the dem, the other for the repub.
But thanks for the attention you've given to the Boston Globe (I used to deliver it in my younger years, so I've always had a soft spot in my heart for it -- and, oh yeah, like Joan said, it's one of the most liberal and progressive major newspapers in the U.S.; their endorsement of Deval Patrick in the general election season helped him win the MA governorship here).
audrey wrote "The last time someone called a comment about Obama an outrageous lie, someone else brought proof of it in the form of his blatant (I won't call them lies) let's call them misinforming protestations."
This is the most indecipherable attempt at character assassination I've ever run across. I guess we'll have to wait in suspense for the details.
If more specific instances of disrespect towards Dean is wanted, there is the Iowa Democratic debate in 2004 as reported by William Salatan in Slate in a frankly unflattering piece devoted to Dean:
"I have two questions for the Dean campaign. First, are you paying Dennis Kucinich to stay in the race? And second, why not? He's gold for you every time he opens his mouth. In this forum, Kucinich took three shots at Dean. He rebuked Dean for refusing to pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Then he forced Dean to explain why Dean would leave U.S. troops in Iraq rather than pull out immediately. (Answer: to keep Iraq from falling into chaos and becoming an al-Qaida nest.) Then he demanded to know why Dean was proposing a pragmatic, politically viable health-insurance program instead of a utopian one. Perhaps for a small payment Kucinich could be persuaded to attack Dean for opposing gay marriage, supporting the death penalty, and accepting the divinity of Jesus."
http://www.slate.com/id/2093489/
Ok, I'm off to my second job.
(well, at least it's not the Sunday right before Christmas; because that's when all the male shoppers show up trying to find something to buy for their wives, their moms, etc. and asking me what would be good to buy and for those guys just staring at something, I end asking them "Can I help you ?")
49.
* rdorgan
Thank you, yes, I know. :)
They always give an endorsement of one from each part in the primary and the infamous ONE endorsement in the General.
I just never saw someone make the argument the Republican endorsement would be for the weakest of candidates so they would lose in the General and then use the opposing theorty for the Democrat.
The "Beef" has been posted here and elsewhere not just once, but a number of times. You maybe weren't that interested at that time, and didn't pay it much attention.
When someone posted proof that Obama at least led people astray, if not lie, about his intentions to finish his term, no Obama supporter, that I noticed, commented that : "Gee, I didn't know that, or maybe Ill have to consider that". If I remember correctly he said , how many times do I have to keep saying that I will finish my term? With that proof, Obama supporters keep asking for more proof. If you don't want to believe it, then the only remedy is to do your own research if you really want to know.
Here's another account of a shot by Kucinich at Dean during the radio debate:
"At one point, Representative Dennis A. Kucinich of Ohio used a prop more suited for a television venue as a way demonstrating to Dr. Dean that he could not reduce the deficit without cutting Pentagon spending, drawing an incredulous if helpful bit of narration from the host.
"'Congressman Kucinich is holding up a pie chart, which is not truly effective on the radio,' said Neal Conan, the host of 'Talk of the Nation' and the moderator of the debate.
"'Well, it's effective if Howard can see it,' Mr. Kucinich said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...
audrey wrote "The 'Beef' has been posted here and elsewhere not just once, but a number of times."
Perhaps with total refutation, but not otherwise. You're helping to perpetuate a myth.
audrey wrote "If I remember correctly [Obama] said, how many times do I have to keep saying that I will finish my term? With that proof, Obama supporters keep asking for more proof."
In case it isn't obvious, you can't fraudulently misrepresent future events unless you intend to break a promise when you make it. In other words, to misrepresent something, the thing you're representing has to have happened or be existing. Otherwise, it's nothing but a prediction or an indication of future intent.
If you somehow know Obama intended not to complete his term at the time he represented that he would, I guess I could understand your claim a little.
"At one point, Representative Dennis A. Kucinich of Ohio used a prop more suited for a television venue as a way demonstrating to Dr. Dean that he could not reduce the deficit without cutting Pentagon spending, drawing an incredulous if helpful bit of narration from the host."
...Get the man some more material. If I see these posts anymore, I'm going to have to support Dennis then. Tom, every time I see "at one point, Rep....."I know what it is. PLEASE Save us.
Tom...
I'm reminded of the Repug handbook. We're just talking here. Somehow the subject jumps from Obama to anything else. Can't follow your convoluted thoughts, so muddle on.
Tom 56.........,
Regular people just call it simply keeping your word.
Linda wrote ...Get the man some more material. If I see these posts anymore, I'm going to have to support Dennis then. Tom, every time I see 'at one point, Rep.....' I know what it is. PLEASE Save us."
This is a fair request. I won't post about Kucinich again. Sorry.
audrey wrote "Regular people just call it simply keeping your word."
You would think. Whenever I've mentioned that Dodd and Edwards had a change of heart over first the invasion, then showing resolve in their previous votes, then the question of timetables, I've been told that people have to adjust their thinking to events.
In Obama's case the event was an opportunity to serve as a president instead of a senator. In Dodd's and Edwards case, the event was a presidential run and how far could they get in a Democratic campaign as occupation supporters.
The subject was Obama, and now the conversation hopefully changes to Dodd and Edwards. Howard explained to us about examining new compelling evidence and adjusting your thinking because of it. You never heard of Howard not keeping his word about what he'd do though.
There was no great hue and cry for newly elected first term Sen. Obama to run for Pres.
He just saw it as an opportunity and did it, in spite of his many protests at being asked so many times and answering that he would not run and would finish his term. That is a character issue, and I could not support him.
So much for discussion of Thomas Paine or the new book.
Was the football spam really necessary?
I thought there was an 'open thread' around here for that sort of off-topic community bonding. If not, there should be...
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Judd Gregg's Vote Against Democracy
By Douglas M on Nov 22, 2009 8:34 PM EST -
Sunday items
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 AM EST -
Friday finds
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 20, 2009 7:48 AM EST -
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Nationalize all Health Insurance companies
By Carl B on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM EST
-
By former on Dec 16, 2007 12:26 PM EST37.
former
Sun, 12/16/07
Reply to this
25.
Phil Specht
Sun, 12/16/07
....
Ron Paul has appeal because his political philosophy is totally rational if you accept his premises.
----------
Paul's premises ARE NOT AT ALL different from those of Dean's.
No matter if one has made it audible or even recognizes that "second" part exists.
Again the resolution is simple, imo; the “second” part of one’s premises IS a “first” part of another’s and wise versa.
e.g.
You DO HAVE power = Government DO NOT HAVE it.
Government DO NOT HAVE power = You DO HAVE it.