Partisan

@partpartisan.bsky.social

836 Followers 585 Following

Jewish YIMBY. Whatever the opposite of an enlightened centrist is. Citizen of the Greatest Nation in This or Any Age (aka Washington State). ✡️🌐🔰🏗🌃🚋⛈️🌲📈🗣

Carlyle, who had studied extensively the causes of the French Revolution, was apprehensive about England's future. He presented Chartism as a symptom of a disease that affected England. The effect of it could be a revolution if government did not improve the living conditions of the labouring classes. A cure for this disease is, according to Carlyle, a "real aristocracy" which can lead the working class through the vicissitudes of modern history.
"The dismal science" is a derogatory name for the science of economics, coined by Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle in 1849.[1] It contrasts with "the gay science", a then-current name for poetry
"One of the more enduring myths about the mobility Americans have embraced and the freedom cars provide us is that its unsustainable because we can’t continue to pave over America. America has become an “Asphalt Nation.” It’s a nice bumper sticker but, like most bumper stickers, it’s wrong and even conveys bad information."
Linn and like-minded ministers argued that voters should impose their own religious test—a voluntary restriction that would be all the more striking given the lack of a constitutional provision requiring Christianity.25 Voters rejected these arguments and elected Jefferson president.26 Adams attributed his electoral loss to popular opposition to a religious establishment, noting presumably false claims that Adams would have "introduce[d] an Establishment of Presbyterianism."27 In his view, a number of voters "said Let Us have an Atheist or Deist or any Thing rather than an Establishment of Presbyterianism."
When Richardson, for instance, wrote about Rededicate 250, a bizarre event held on the National Mall on May 17 that was part political rally and part evangelical revival, she wrote with confidence, “...the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation. The Founders were quite clear about that…,” and she went on to quote the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which famously declared that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” and “has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [of Muslims].” It’s a bold, appealing proclamation, one that seeks to co-opt, if not to obliterate, a key trope on the right, where the Founders’ status as (almost exclusively) white Protestants and their invocations of the Almighty trump the constitutionally protected rights they enshrined, most notably in the First Amendment. And it’s true, the Treaty of Tripoli does say exactly that. But this is not the whole story. Many states maintained a religious test for office, and an established church, well into the nineteenth century. In fact, Massachusetts, where Richardson was educated and continues to work, did not fully disestablish its state church until 1833. Moreover, institutional histories are not the only histories that count. Rededicate 250 can only be seen as an anomaly if you ignore the long history connecting evangelical revivals and American politics dating back to Colonial times—traditions that have continually reasserted themselves in figures like Billy Graham and the continued prominence of megachurches. In the lived history of the Republic, not only the Christian character, but the evangelical nature of the country, are hard to deny. It can certainly be complicated and contextualized via documents like the Treaty of Tripoli. But that is different than asserting that their existence trumps other relevant details and events in U.S. history.
AirBnB "the world is meant to meet" FIFA ad spot.
P1: "gentrification is bad!" P2: "here's how to wtop gentrification" (end segregation. Let people make cheap housing.) P1: i don't want to stop gentrification. I want to end capitalism.
One of the more hilarious suggestions made by the squawkers for this point of view is to abandon the natural distinction along racial lines, and to replace it with a highly unnatural one along sexual lines. One such suggestion-emanating, no doubt, from the mind of a madwhite-would have us say "he" for male whites (and blacks) and "she" for female whites (and blacks). Can you imagine the outrage with which sensible folk of either sex would greet this "modest proposal"? Another suggestion is that the plural pronoun "they" be used in place of the inclusive "whe." This would turn the charming proverb "Whe who laughs last, laughs best" into the bizarre concoction "They who laughs last, laughs best." As if anyone in whis right mind could have thought that the original proverb applied only to the white race! No, we don't need a new pronoun to "liberate" our minds. That's the lazy white's way of solving the pseudoproblem of racism. In any case, it's ungrammatical. The pronoun "they" is a plural pronoun, and it grates on the civilized ear to hear it used to denote only one person. Such a usage, if adopted, would merely promote illiteracy and accelerate the already scandalously rapid nosedive of the average intelligence level in our society.
A Person Paper on Purity in Language William Satire (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter) From Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern by Douglas R. Hofstadter, Basic Books, 1985. (Original web version: http://www.bloomington.in.us/~abangert/person.html)
Nightwing No. 136
Old skeet: This is gonna be such a fucking disaster for us liberal jews holy shit
The survey of 692 American Jews drew from a panel maintained by JPPI that aims to reflect the denominational distribution of U.S. Jews. The institute says its polls reflect the sentiments of “connected” Jews because its panel includes fewer intermarried Jews, more Jews who are affiliated with denominations and more Jews who have lived in Israel than demographic data would suggest is representative of U.S Jewry overall.
Histogram showing the number of new states admitted to the U.S. since 1777.
The phrase 'cumulative radicalisation' is used in this context to sum up the way extreme rhetoric and competition among different Nazi agencies produced increasingly extreme policies, as fanatical bureaucratic underlings put into practice what they believed Hitler would have approved based on his widely disseminated speeches and propaganda.