The fact Prokofiev died the same day would have taken away a little of the carnival atmosphere, however.

Brian, well put. Very well put. There is no way to reasonably disagree with that, but I’m sure that won’t keep a few from trying (as we can see).

Two can play this game. Did you know that MLK, Jr was a Republican? Well the good folks of the National Black Republican Association have used some of your arguments to turn it all on the other side of the coin, so to speak:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Billboards_Claim_Rev._King_Was_Republican_0705.html

And, for the record, I understand the game wherein 21st century liberals and conservatives want to claim iconic figures such as Abraham Lincoln as a likeminded one of them (as if to say, “If he were here now, he’d agree with my side”). But it is worth noting that Lincoln really cannot be classed that easily. He was a Whig, and therefore in favor of protectionism (high tarriffs) and “internal improvements” (big public spending on infrastructure)…so that might correspond to certain parts of modern liberalism. But he also was doggedly conservative with regard to the Constitution, and the Constitution protected Slavery (although not by name). Lincoln was very much against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the effect of which was to end the Missouri Compromise and to throw all the areas of the nation open to slavery, regardless whether the respective States had already banned it or not. Did this make him a States Rights fellow? Or an opponent of a national decision? How do we shoe-horn that into “liberal/conservative” paradigm? (an honest question; I don’t think we can)

When Lincoln ran for the Senate against Judge Douglas, he assiduously promised to leave slavery alone where it was - much to the outrage of the Abolitionists - even as he strenuously objected to Judge Douglass’s repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the potential spread of slavery into the free states. But consider what this meant to white voters in Illinois, where the “black codes” prohibited blacks from moving into the state. Opposition to the spread of slavery was also support for the continuance of a white-only Illinois. Was this “conservative” or “liberal”?

And once elected president, Lincoln again and forthrightly promised to leave slavery alone where it existed…and he worked and worked to see if he could find a way to compensate the slave owners if they would surrender “their” human “property”; and he doggedly held onto the idea of deporting and colonizing the freed black Americans somewhere else. (Lerone Bennett wrote a fascinating polemic called Forced Into Glory about Lincoln which - agree or diagree - is a useful innoculation against the tendency toward hagiography when it comes to our greatest president).

And during the war, he suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus, and simply ignored a writ from Chief Justice Taney (imagine some primordial Keith Olbermann “Special Comment” about that!! Actually, you don’t have to imagine - any number of Democratic party broadsheets lambasted him over all these things).

One is tempted to argue that Lincoln was the prototypical “conservative”, in that he conserved the nation itself; even as he was also the prototypical “progressive”, since his whole political career - and his presidency - presents a record of progression from the old and known, to the new and unkown.

By way of saying - we humans are all imperfect, and it is almost certainly a mistake to think that your own particular brand of political thinking is one with ALL that was ever good in history, and distinctly different from ALL that was bad!!!

Anyway - it’s off to the Dells -

See ya on the other side!

Yes indeed, McPherson Ave and Martin Schweig. Takes me back. Great housing stock, very affordable. I lived in some of the old high-rises on Lindell Ave and an old house on Westminster, down the street from the then Mayor. St. Louis was a great place to raise a daughter, although we had to use private schools.

I’m so happy to be in Chicago now. Living on North Lake Shore Dr. in one of the Meis buildings. No comparison.

How in the world does an alleged and self-proclaimed religious leader call a vile and outright bigot “my friend and long-time senator from my home state of North Carolina, was a man of consistent conviction to conservative ideals and courage to faithfully serve God and country based on principle, not popularity or politics.” Says more about “Reverend” Graham than it does about Helms. (Maybe says more about the scum Franklin, whose putting words in his father’s mouth to enrich himself with earmarked tax money.)

On a different subject, anybody ever notice the remarkable physical similarity between Helms, Elmer Fudd, Phil Gramm, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney? Misanthropes and Racists Anonymous, all cloned from Jesse hisownself.

Professional con-artist religionists that espouse bigotry should be headed for some lower circle of hell than Dante imagined. Helms thought delusionally that he ran the CIA, and he was responsible for the murder of Jose Napoleon Duarte in support of fascists that murdered priests and nuns. But what the hey, they were cultists.

Romero’s murder was engineered and financed by Americans, including, with no doubt whatsoever, Jesse Helms. Most likely, Salvatore Allende and most likely Orlando Letelier. Co-conspirator Henry Kissinger is still walking around and if God rains down hell for sins, his continued existence is remarkable. John Kerry exposed much of this extreme moral turpitude in the Iran-Contra hearings.

American “Conservatives” aren’t conservatives. They favor and pursue radical measures like murdering good men and manufacturing base slander when murder isn’t convenient. Claiming you want to shrink government to the size of a kitten so you can drown it in a bathtub isn’t Conservative. It’s radical, and it’s aimed at the heart of political freedom, free speech, human rights, equality, teachings of Jesus, and pretty much anything else decent produced in human discourse since that last New American Centurion Hamurabai. And they can’t get that right.

Lock up a few hapless guys and claim they’re evil and torture their ass. Works for Rove. Wouldn’t have worked for GW. What George (widely regarded as a good president) said was:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

So, murdering, or torturing, foreign leaders , or their soldiers, or anybody schmuck trapped inside ‘enemy’ lines means you ought to be tortured and murdered, not necessarily in that order.

This should actually be the case, although I wouldn’t say death is an option. I’ve watched Paths of Glory about 13 times. People kill people when they were just fucking wrong, and you can’t take that thut who are these bombastic assholes that claim American values don’t mean Dick since Dick scared the bejeezus out of the terrified? Habeas corpus rights threaten your life? No, asshole, they protect you. Rhese people love the death penalty

Cheney. He’s an ass asshle wants tpotale your moneys to take your money

As to conservatism’s accomplishments, what are they? If you scan the history of this country, I can’t think of a single major accomplishment of conservatives. Not one. Unless you consider the creation of national debt an accomplishment.

And as to the myth of fiscally conservative economic policies, 70% of ALL national debt was created by three presidents: Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Certainly nothing to brag about.

All of the major reforms in our nation’s history have come at the hands of liberal leadership. The abolishment of slavery, the 14th amendment, the labor movement, women’s right to the vote, child labor reform, etc., etc., etc.. The very conceptual basis for our existence is liberal. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. were liberals. Additionally, Lincoln, one of the founders of the Republican party was, in the context of his political world, decidedly liberal.

And lest anyone say that conservative Ronald Reagan defeated communism, I ‘d say he opposed Soviet communism and enabled Chinese communism. So much so that the Chinese communists are hale and hearty today are as oppressive as ever, and an economic and environmental threat to all.

We like to believe that we are a center/right country, however, when push comes to shove, we are consistently liberal in our lasting social values.

American conservatives have consistently believed in two major themes:
1. Zero, or as nearly practicable to zero, cost labor.
2. Additive or aggregate civil rights.

The former explains their devotion to slavery and their hostility to organized and immigrant labor. The latter is usually expressed as “State’s Rights” and is how they justify their willingness to abrogate individual liberties. Helms spent his entire career trying to deny civil liberties to anyone who was not a white male conservative. He was not at odds just with contemporary liberals; he was arguing with the founding fathers themselves. He was no patriot.

In this context, Helms and his uber-conservative allies in the modern Republican party are all enemies of the constitution.