Regards,

Werner

Happy Independence Day to all American friends!

And now, 230 years down the road, instead of complacency, time to face new challenges, says http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0703-29.htm

"Put away the flags

....We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

Happy 4th!

Вложение: clipfireworks.gif (13 КБ, число загрузок: 212)

An excerpt from http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_STTSRRD:

Pursuing happiness

Everywhere you look in contemporary America you see a people engaged in that pursuit. You can see it in work habits. Americans not only work harder than most Europeans (they work an average of 1,731 hours a year compared with an average of 1,440 for Germans). They also endure lengthy commutes (who cares about a couple of hours a day in a car when you have a McMansion to come home to?). You can see it in geographical mobility. About 40m of them move house every year. They are remarkably willing to travel huge distances in pursuit of everything from bowling conventions to factory outlets. You can see it in religion: Americans relentlessly shop around for the church that most suits their spiritual needs. And you can see it in the country's general hopefulness: two-thirds of Americans are optimistic about the future.

Since Americans are energetic even in deconstructing their own founding principles, there is no shortage of people who have taken exception to the happiness pursuit. They range from conservatives such as Robert Bork, who think the phrase encapsulates the “emptiness at the heart of American ideology”, to liberals who think that it is a justification for an acquisitive society.

One criticism is that the pursuit is self-defeating. The more you pursue the illusion of happiness the more you sacrifice the real thing. The flip side of relentless mobility is turmoil and angst, broken marriages and unhappy children. Americans have less job security than ever before. They even report having fewer close friends than a couple of decades ago. And international studies of happiness suggest that people in certain poor countries, for instance Nigeria and Mexico, are apparently happier than people in America.

Another criticism is that Americans have confused happiness with material possessions (it is notable that Thomas Jefferson's call echoes Adam Smith's phrase about “life, liberty and the pursuit of property”). Do all those pairs of Manolo Blahnik shoes really make you happy? Or are they just a compensation for empty lives à la “Sex in the City”?

If opinion polls on such matters mean anything—and that is dubious—they suggest that both these criticisms are flawed. A 2006 Pew Research Centre study, “Are we happy yet?” claims that 84% of Americans are either “very happy” (34%) or “pretty happy” (50%). The Harris Poll's 2004 “feel good index” found that 95% are pleased with their homes and 91% are pleased with their social lives. The Pew polls show that money does indeed go some way towards buying happiness: nearly half (49%) of Americans with annual incomes of more than $100,000 say they are very happy compared with just 24% of people with incomes of $30,000 or less. They also suggest that Americans' religiosity makes them happier still: 43% of Americans who attend religious services once a week or more report being very happy compared with 31% who attend once a month or less and 26% of people who attend seldom or never.

Weep, and you weep alone

The pursuit of happiness explains all sorts of peculiarities of American life: from the $700m that is spent on self-help books every year to the irritating dinner guests who will not stop looking at their BlackBerries. It also holds a clue to understanding American politics. Perhaps the biggest reason why the Republicans have proved so successful in recent years is that they have established a huge “happiness gap”. Some 45% of Republicans report being “very happy” compared with just 30% of Democrats. The Democrats may be right to give warning of global warming and other disasters. But are they right to give the impression that they relish all the misery? The people's party will never regain its momentum unless it learns to relate to the guy on the super-sized patio, happily grilling his hamburgers and displaying his American flag.

The pursuit of happiness may even help to explain the surge of anti-Americanism. Many people dislike America because of its failure to live up to its stated ideals. But others dislike it precisely because it is doing exactly what Jefferson intended. For some Europeans, the pursuit of happiness in the form of monster cars and mansions is objectionable on every possible ground, from aesthetic to ecological. You cannot pursue happiness with such conspicuous enthusiasm without making quite a lot of people around the world rather unhappy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/opinion/04furstenberg.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=81fc9b8edd5f55c6&ex=1152244800

[snip] So as Americans celebrate this day by looking back on the Declaration of Independence and the men who wrote it, we might also spare a thought for lesser known figures like Weems, Carey, Bingham and Webster, and for they texts they wrote. These men and their publications — at least as much as the founding fathers — created the common heritage Americans celebrate today. ...

Surely the most famous of the founders' founders, however, was Noah Webster. Born in Connecticut in 1758, Webster briefly practiced law and then, failing as a lawyer, turned to teaching. Frustrated by the "English" character of contemporary schoolbooks, Webster took matters into his own hands. His nationalist mission would eventually transform the language we use today.

Webster published his first speller in 1783, followed by a grammar, a reader and eventually his life's work, a dictionary. All were astonishingly popular. Emphasizing homegrown virtues and national heroes ("Washington was not a selfish man," read one of the most popular editions of his speller; "he labored for the good of his country, more than for himself"), Webster's texts would teach Americans not just to spell and indeed to think, but to do both as Americans.

Since in some foreign cities celebrations of the Independence Day in American communities started last Sunday, here is some food for thought in anticipation of all the parades, barbecue, fireworks and baseball games:

....if you have a moment on the Fourth, check out the Declaration of Independence for a glimpse of the bad old days when Americans were ruled by a King George, who, as the document's authors made clear, refused "his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good," "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power," and "transport[ed] us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174816/powers_on_george_tenet_the_cia_and_the_invasion_of_iraq

[snip] Recent months have seen a dramatic increase in the number of Americans proudly displaying the Stars and Stripes on their cars, homes, businesses, T-shirts, caps, lapel pins and even tattoos. This outpouring of flag-waving signifies a variety of sentiments--from identification with the victims of the September 11 attacks to support for the military's invasion of Afghanistan. But in our popular culture, displays of the American flag are--along with the very idea of "patriotism"--typically viewed as expressions of "conservative" politics. The patriotic fervor since September 11 has revitalized that belief and, as in other times, has given conservative politicos and pundits a handy means to undermine dissent and progressive initiatives. ...

Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a leading Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy, who was fired from his Boston ministry for his sermons depicting Jesus as a socialist. Bellamy penned the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a magazine for young people published in Boston with a circulation of about 500,000.

A few years earlier, the magazine had sponsored a largely successful campaign to sell American flags to public schools. ...

He hoped the pledge would promote a moral vision to counter the individualism embodied in capitalism and expressed in the climate of the Gilded Age, with its robber barons and exploitation of workers. Bellamy intended the line "One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all" to express a more collective and egalitarian vision of America.

Bellamy's view that unbridled capitalism, materialism and individualism betrayed America's promise was widely shared in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many American radicals and progressive reformers proudly asserted their patriotism. To them, America stood for basic democratic values--economic and social equality, mass participation in politics, free speech and civil liberties, elimination of the second-class citizenship of women and racial minorities, a welcome mat for the world's oppressed people. The reality of corporate power, right-wing xenophobia and social injustice only fueled progressives' allegiance to these principles and the struggle to achieve them.

Most Americans are unaware that much of our patriotic culture--including many of the leading icons and symbols of American identity--was created by artists and writers of decidedly left-wing and even socialist sympathies. A look at the songs sung at post-9/11 patriotic tribute events and that appear on the various patriotic compilation albums, or the clips incorporated into film shorts celebrating the "American spirit," reveals that the preponderance of these originated in the forgotten tradition of left-wing patriotism.

Begin with the lines inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Emma Lazarus was a poet of considerable reputation in her day, a well-known figure in literary circles. She was a strong supporter of Henry George and his "socialistic" single-tax program, and a friend of William Morris, a leading British socialist. Her welcome to the "wretched refuse" of the earth, written in 1883, was an effort to project an inclusive and egalitarian definition of the American dream.

The words to "America the Beautiful" were written in 1893 by Katharine Lee Bates, a professor of English at Wellesley College. Bates was an accomplished and published poet, whose book America the Beautiful and Other Poems includes a sequence of poems expressing outrage at US imperialism in the Philippines. Indeed, Bates identified with the anti-imperialist movement of her day and was part of progressive reform circles in the Boston area concerned about labor rights, urban slums and women's suffrage. She was also an ardent feminist, and for decades lived with and loved her Wellesley colleague Katharine Coman, an economist and social activist. "America the Beautiful" not only speaks to the beauty of the American continent but also reflects her view that US imperialism undermines the nation's core values of freedom and liberty. The poem's final words--"and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea"--are an appeal for social justice rather than the pursuit of wealth.

Many Americans consider Woody Guthrie's song "This Land Is Your Land," penned in 1940, to be our unofficial national anthem. Guthrie was a radical with strong ties to the Communist Party. He was inspired to write the song as an answer to Irving Berlin's popular "God Bless America," which he thought failed to recognize that it was the "people" to whom America belonged. The words to "This Land Is Your Land" reflect Guthrie's fusion of patriotism, support for the underdog and class struggle. In this song Guthrie celebrates America's natural beauty and bounty but criticizes the country for its failure to share its riches, reflected in the song's last and least-known verse:

Guthrie was not alone in combining patriotism and radicalism during the Depression and World War II. In this period, many American composers, novelists, artists and playwrights engaged in similar projects. ... Many of their compositions--including Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" and "Lincoln Portrait"--are now patriotic musical standards, regularly performed at major civic events.

Earl Robinson was a member of the composers' collective who pioneered the effort to combine patriotism and progressivism. In 1939 he teamed with lyricist John La Touche to write "Ballad for Americans," which was performed on the CBS radio network by Paul Robeson, accompanied by chorus and orchestra. This eleven-minute cantata provided a musical review of American history, depicted as a struggle between the "nobodies who are everybody" and an elite that fails to understand the real, democratic essence of America.

Robeson, at the time one of the best-known performers on the world stage, became, through this work, a voice of America. Broadcasts and recordings of "Ballad for Americans" (by Bing Crosby as well as Robeson) were immensely popular. In the summer of 1940, it was performed at the national conventions of both the Republican and Communist parties. The work soon became a staple in school choral performances, but it was literally ripped out of many public school songbooks after Robinson and Robeson were identified with the radical left and blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Since then, however, "Ballad for Americans" has been periodically revived, notably during the bicentennial celebration in 1976, when a number of pop and country singers performed it in concerts and on TV.

During World War II, with lyricist Lewis Allen, Robinson co-wrote another patriotic hit, "The House I Live In." Its lyrics asked, and then answered, the question posed in the first line of the song, "What is America to me?" The song evokes America as a place where all races can live freely, where one can speak one's mind, where the cities as well as the natural landscapes are beautiful. The song was made a hit by Frank Sinatra in 1945. Sinatra also starred in an Oscar-winning movie short--written by Albert Maltz, later one of the Hollywood Ten--in which he sang "The House I Live In" to challenge bigotry, represented in the movie by a gang of kids who rough up a Jewish boy.

"The House I Live In," like "Ballad for Americans," was exceedingly popular for several years but became controversial during the McCarthy period and has largely disappeared from public consciousness. Its co-author, Lewis Allen, was actually Abel Meeropol, a high school teacher who also penned "Strange Fruit," the anti-lynching song made famous by Billie Holiday. In the 1950s Meeropol and his wife adopted the sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after their parents were executed as atom spies. Despite this, Sinatra kept the song in his repertoire. Perhaps the most astonishing performance of "The House I Live In" was at the nationally televised commemoration of the centenary of the Statue of Liberty in 1986, when Sinatra sang it as the finale to the program, with President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy Reagan, sitting directly in front of him.

Only a handful of Americans could have grasped the political irony of that moment: Sinatra performing a patriotic anthem written by blacklisted writers to a President who, as head of the Screen Actors Guild in the 1950s, helped create Hollywood's purge of radicals. Sinatra's own left-wing (and nearly blacklisted) past, and the history of the song itself, have been obliterated from public memory.

Even during the 1960s, American progressives continued to seek ways to fuse their love of country with their opposition to the national government's policies. The March on Washington in 1963 gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, where Martin Luther King Jr. famously quoted the words to "My Country 'Tis of Thee." Phil Ochs, then part of a new generation of politically conscious singer-songwriters who emerged during the 1960s, wrote an anthem in the Guthrie vein, "Power and Glory," which coupled love of country with a strong plea for justice and equality. Interestingly, this song later became part of the repertoire of the US Army band. And in 1968, in a famous antiwar speech on the steps of the Capitol, Norman Thomas, the aging leader of the Socialist Party, proclaimed, "I come to cleanse the American flag, not burn it."

In recent decades, Bruce Springsteen has most closely followed in the Guthrie tradition. From "Born in the USA," to his songs about Tom Joad (the militant protagonist in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath), to his recent anthem for the victims of the September 11 tragedy ("My City of Ruins"), whom he urges to "come on rise up!" Springsteen has championed the downtrodden while challenging America to live up to its ideals. Indeed, by performing both "Born in the USA" and "Land of Hope and Dreams" at benefits for the families of World Trade Center casualties, Springsteen has coupled his anger at injustice with his belief in the nation's promise. ... http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020603/dreier/2

Washington's Farewell Address to the new nation was a warning about the threat of American imperial ambitions and a declaration of his high expectations for a republic of free men: "In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080714/scheer

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY

Instead of thinking about all people - of their truths and their rights - this is the day when I think of barbecues on the patio, dry white wine in cool glasses, children splashing in a pool, good conversations and spectacular fireworks down on the Delaware. This is the day when I most miss America, my American friends, and my American home.

Nanna

Happy 4th of July!

Laurent K.

We don't seem to have an Independence Day for the Earth.

Does that mean that the Earth is not independent yet? Still enslaved to the follies of manknd, and fighting the conflicts of freedom and liberty?

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 5, 2008 2:17 AM Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 4, 2008 6:51 PM We don't seem to have an Independence Day for the Earth. Does that mean that the Earth is not independent yet? Not as long as it is ruled by any heavenly Gods, or charlatans pretending to be their ambassadors, but let's see again in one or two thousand years..

The US has the Boston Tea Party, and if God rules the heaven without earthly representation, then we have a problem not of monetary tax, but time of devotion demanded by God. Considering that science says that the Universe is expanding, then the Empire of God must be expanding too. That means a very powerful empire in the space-time continuum. If we cannot afford time, maybe we can explore the possibility of the three dimensions of space to recreate the global version of the Boston Tea Party?

But Einstein is no longer around. Space travel is not yet on the same footing as ocean vessels during the era of the Boston Tea Party. The probability of another Einstein within one or two thousand years might demand extreme faith that goes beyond affordability!

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 5, 2008 1:39 AM Happy Independence day! A great achievement, indeed. Now I wonder when the UK will be able to celebrate independence from the US..

Thanks to the wide availability of public transport (I guess), the Brits are not Humpty Dumpties and therefore, not in danger of tumbling down the wall into EU territory and risking an upset of the more or less settled balance of the French-German axis of power. As the US is still the No. 1 economy, the Brits won't be leaning dangerously to peek into EU either.

Happy Fourth of July to everybody who wants to celebrate it.

Uniquely qualified to bring you this news: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657699261689193.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

The Last Best Hope of Earth

July Fourth is much more than just an American holiday.

As long as the United States stands fast for the moral principles of July 4, 1776, we will continue to be the bulwark of freedom, the last best hope of earth.

* * *

On a lighter note: http://open.salon.com/blog/iamsurly/2009/07/01/all_american_pride

It must be the Fourth of July as the local realtor has kindly put a plastic flag in my yard to remind me to be patriotic and to list my house with her when it is time to sell. Unfortunately for her, I rent. Every year these flags arrive in my yard and when the holiday is over, I'm at a loss as to how to dispose of the damn thing. Last year, I left it in a flower pot in the front yard until it faded and broke. I was then unsure what to do with it. It is not biodegradable and I doubt it is something my city will recycle; and while I know the Supreme Court will let me burn a cloth one if the mood strikes, none of the flag guidelines that I have found talk about the etiquette for the proper disposal of plastic flags. Last year I threw it in the trash under the cover of darkness. I wish to Betsy Ross the local realtor would stop putting me in this predicament each year.

* * *

America Needs a New Anthem

So why does a nation with such a rich musical heritage tolerate the Star-Spangled Banner as its national anthem? The Star-Spangled Banner is musically and lyrically bankrupt. (Liberals and conservatives should agree on this. Even the late William F. Buckley Jr., father of American conservatism, hated the anthem).

Let's examine the first stanza. (There are four! Who knew?)

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Here are just some of the problems:

Clearly, America needs a new anthem. Here are three options.

Of course, Americans won't rid themselves of the Star-Spangled Banner, so there's only one real option: Keep the anthem and orchestrate the hell out of it. Even the worst song can be orchestrated into something palatable, even beautiful.

And that's exactly what happened in Atlanta, 1991, when Whitney Houston sang the National Anthem during the Super Bowl. Houston's stunning voice, combined with a magnificent orchestration, transformed an abysmal anthem into a musical masterpiece.

May this extraordinary rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner be the beginning of a peaceful, joyous, and patriotic holiday.

As I wrote in Post #150030 : This is the day when I most miss America, my American friends, and my American home.

For me that's Thanksgiving. Maybe because I would be very often away during summer. 

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on July 4, 2009 12:26 PM As I wrote in Post #150030 : This is the day when I most miss America, my American friends, and my American home.

 

Well here's wishing you a happy fourth in Denmark!  I'll drink a beer in your honor.

Hi Guys!

On the assumption that there is no such thing as a silly question....

I'm from the UK and thought that July 4th was always known as "Independence Day" but I have noticed over recent years that people more often refer to the day of celebration as the 4th of July or simply the "fourth".

Was there a change in protocol or has it just evolved this way?

Whatever you wish to call it - may I hope all my American friends have a fantastic day!!

Julie J Farrell

Even when far away, we can always dream the American Dream... Like at this exhibition of American photography which just opened in Cracow:

John Baeder, Pappy's Place, Nashville, TN, 1985, olej, płótno © John Baeder, Louis K. and Susan P. Mesel Family Collection

Robert Bechtle, Alameda Chrysler, 1981, olej, płótno lniane, © Robert Bechtle, Louis K. and Susan P. Mesel Family Collection

Tom Blackwell, Sagaponack Sunday, 2003, olej, płótno lniane, © Tom Blackwell, Louis K. and Susan P. Mesel Family Collection

Robert Cothingham, Bud, 1996, litografia © Robert Cothingham, Louis K. and Susan P. Mesel Family Collection

Richard Estes, Pressing, 1978, akryl, deska © Richard Estes, Louis K. and Susan P. Mesel Family Collection

http://www.muzeum.krakow.pl/NewsItem.107.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2191&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=147&cHash=cab7e63160&L=1

http://www.polishmarket.com.pl/document/:20289,American+Dream+2+July+2009+4+October+2009.html

http://ewwwektm.blox.pl/html/1310721,262146,21.html?552681

Hi Julie, and welcome to TC.

I honestly don't know. I checked Google - wrote Fourth - and the first site that came up was Wikipedia with Independence Day.

Were you to ask, sometime during the month of December,"What are you doing on the Fourth?" my guess is that you'd receive a blank stare, "The Fourth?" Whereas, ask the same question in May or June and you will receive an answer relating to Independence Day.

Cheers,

Nanna

Originally written by Julie Farrell I'm from the UK and thought that July 4th was always known as "Independence Day" but I have noticed over recent years that people more often refer to the day of celebration as the 4th of July or simply the "fourth". Was there a change in protocol or has it just evolved this way? Whatever you wish to call it - may I hope all my American friends have a fantastic day!!

 

The holiday has always, or at least in my lifetime, been referred to as "the Fourth" in colloquial speech.  You see "Independence Day" printed on calendars, but that's about it.  I think this is on calendars because it would be bizarre (and redundant) to say "July Fourth" in the square for July 4th.

Anyway, I appreciate the ironic wish for a happy Fourth from a Brit. 

Originally written by David Kallans on July 5, 2009 2:51 AM Anyway, I appreciate the ironic wish for a happy Fourth from a Brit.

I don't suppose the "7-volley salute" (same number of volleys a ship calling at a foreign port would fire in the olden days) was ironically intended for South Korea rather than the US, in which case, it would then raise the question of how tolerant Obama would be for such "call for attention" (or would that be defiant) behavior?

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 4, 2009 11:56 AM     Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

In fact I think the American anthem is very beautiful, regardless of its distorted syntax and poetic inversions. People just do not know that much about music and poetry these days, and it may be quite difficult for some to sing. If something is too difficult or too incomprehensible, people usually reject it. As for the flag, not too many people have this kind of an attitude, perhaps on comic shows, usually cheap ones.

Originally written by David Kallans on July 4, 2009 7:51 PM Anyway, I appreciate the ironic wish for a happy Fourth from a Brit.

Remember, they still have Canada, Australia and New Zealand left...

 * * *

From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124656447523887753.html:

The vote was completed: 12 for independence, New York abstaining, no one opposing. "The break was made, in words at least: on July 2, 1776, in Philadelphia, the American colonies declared independence. If not all 13 clocks had struck as one, twelve had, and with the others silent the effect was the same."

On July 3, Congress argued over the wording and exact content of the formal Declaration. An indictment of the slave trade was dropped. In all, Thomas Jefferson saw roughly 25% of what he'd written wind up on the floor.

On July 4, discussion ended, debate was closed, a vote on the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was called, and the results were as on July 2. Congress ordered the document be printed. They'd sign it in a month. For now, John Hancock and one other, Charles Thompson, fixed their signatures.

Those present thought the great day had been July 2—the vote for independence itself. John Adams, who'd emoted over the 2nd in letters to Abigail, didn't even mention the 4th , and Thomas Jefferson famously went shopping that afternoon for ladies' gloves.

* * *

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/nyregion/05liberty.html?hp

For the privilege of being the first people in nearly eight years to climb the 354 steps to the crown of the Statue of Liberty, 30 visitors on the sun-kissed morning of July 4 had to first endure a bit of bureaucracy: red tape and stiff security. ...

The statue was closed to the public after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and while the base, the pedestal and the observation deck reopened in 2004, the crown remained closed because of security concerns. For the statue’s reopening on the morning of Independence Day, uniforms were everywhere. Some parts of Liberty Island had the feel of an armed fortress, with officers from the Coast Guard, National Parks Service and the New York Police Departmental Justiceg. Coast Guard cutters and police launches bobbed in the harbor.

Before boarding the ferry at Battery Park in Manhattan, ticket holders had to empty their pockets, open their laptops and pass through magnetometers, only to repeat this experience after they debarked on Liberty Island. There they were herded through large white tents and had to pass through an air sensor that puffed in its search for chemicals, according to a worker. ...

For Erica Breder, the experience had also left her speechless.

That is because when she reached the small room at the top with 25 windows overlooking New York Harbor, her boyfriend of three years, Aaron Weisinger, 26, got down on one knee and proposed marriage. ...

Getting the diamond ring through security without Ms. Breder knowing might have been the most difficult part. Mr. Weisinger said he transferred it from his pocket to a friend’s camera bag at the last moment before going through the second set of detectors. ...

Gold does not sound if you go through metal detectors, neither does silver or diamonds, only bra wires.

Only if it were not gold...

That ring did contain a STONE though and I am sure stones, which historically have been used as weapons, are considered as dangerous as bottled water and would not be therefore allowed for security reasons. A stone is a stone, M'am. Our rules say NO.

I have stones in my rings and they never ring... unless you have an 18 carat diamond or a pink panther.

Most women wear rings in New York, and they are not a problem at all. There are other things that cause problems at security check points, including food and drinks, even water...

Watches, yes, metal watches, not silver or gold. Thank God I don't wear one, because just putting it on and off would drive me mad, belts: these are especially dangerous for men,vvery young men especially with the current fashion of wearing the pants low. Often you could see them in the swimming gear in court.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 5, 2009 9:25 PM Gold does not sound if you go through metal detectors, neither does silver or diamonds, only bra wires. Only if it were not gold...

Assuming that they have not already known, you've probably endeared your valuable self as a possible candidate for the post of consigliere to ...

I think they know, the people who need to know know: they don't have to make guns out of gold, plastic is good enough, certain kinds of plastic. I think they have already figured it out.
As for the consigliere, the wrong side of the law, on the right side, why not.

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 4, 2008 10:58 PM Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on July 4, 2006 2:38 AM Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-selling "A People's History of the United States"   Zinn's is a grotesque book.

More of the same grotesque: Untold Truths About the American Revolution »

The American Revolution—independence from England—was a just cause. Why should the colonists here be occupied by and oppressed by England? But therefore, did we have to go to the Revolutionary War?

How many people died in the Revolutionary War?

Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it’s likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. So let’s take the lower figure—25,000 people died out of a population of three million. That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs.

You might consider that worth it, or you might not.

Canada is independent of England, isn’t it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don’t have. They didn’t fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England?

In the year before those famous shots were fired, farmers in Western Massachusetts had driven the British government out without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over and they said goodbye to the British officials. It was a nonviolent revolution that took place. But then came Lexington and Concord, and the revolution became violent, and it was run not by the farmers but by the Founding Fathers. The farmers were rather poor; the Founding Fathers were rather rich.

Who actually gained from that victory over England? It’s very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it’s very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That’s one thing were not accustomed to in this country because we don’t think in class terms. We think, “Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.

Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line—in the Proclamation of 1763—that said you couldn’t go westward into Indian territory. They didn’t do it because they loved the Indians. They didn’t want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.

So when you look at the American Revolution, there’s a fact that you have to take into consideration. Indians—no, they didn’t benefit.

Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution?

Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it. ...

We’ve got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.

Once a historical event has taken place, it becomes very hard to imagine that you could have achieved a result some other way. When something is happening in history it takes on a certain air of inevitability: This is the only way it could have happened. No.

We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities.