Tag Archives: white people

On this Day … Moby Dick Published


On this day in 1851, Moby-Dick, a novel by Herman Melville about the voyage of the whaling ship Pequod, is published by Harper & Brothers in New York. Moby-Dick is now considered a great classic of American literature and contains one of the most famous opening lines in fiction: “Call me Ishmael.” Initially, though, the book about Captain Ahab and his quest for a giant white whale was a flop.

Herman Melville was born in New York City in 1819 and as a young man spent time in the merchant marines, the U.S. Navy and on a whaling ship in the South Seas. In 1846, he published his first novel, Typee, a romantic adventure based on his experiences in Polynesia. The book was a success and a sequel, Omoo, was published in 1847. Three more novels followed, with mixed critical and commercial results. Melville’s sixth book, Moby-Dick, was first published in October 1851 in London, in three volumes titled The Whale, and then in the U.S. a month later. Melville had promised his publisher an adventure story similar to his popular earlier works, but instead, Moby-Dick was a tragic epic, influenced in part by Melville’s friend and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, neighbor, Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose novels include The Scarlet Letter.

After Moby-Dick‘s disappointing reception, Melville continued to produce novels, short stories (Bartleby) and poetry, but writing wasn’t paying the bills so in 1865 he returned to New York to work as a customs inspector, a job he held for 20 years.

Melville died in 1891, largely forgotten by the literary world. By the 1920s, scholars had rediscovered his work, particularly Moby-Dick, which would eventually become a staple of high school reading lists across the United States. Billy Budd, Melville’s final novel, was published in 1924, 33 years after his death.

history.com

Advertisements

Separation of Church and State …


United States

John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English John Locke.[1] philosopher According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[21]Thomas Jefferson stated: “Bacon, Locke and Newton..I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the physical and moral sciences”[22][23] Indeed such was Locke’s influence,

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[24][25]

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke,[1] the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state.[2]United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept. The phrase was quoted by the

The concept has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism.

source: internet

Recycling ::: 5 Million Tons ::: Holidays


In 2009 it was reported that the amount above was the amount of trash produced by Americans between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.  That is 25 percent more than we generate in a typical five or six-week period during the rest of the year … Consider what the numbers are today

**Reuse packaging material, some UPS stores accept clean peanuts for reuse

**Find eco-friendly places to recycle your Christmas Tree

**Use less envelopes.. more ecards or postcards for the Holidays

**Ecyclewashington.org … Washington State and is free for residents & small businesses. They will take 3 items per day…computers, tv, monitors

Do Something to Help Heal our Environment !

Be a Seed for Change

Keep Supporting Jonathan Deeds, Ph.D., ~is working to assure that U.S. seafood is both safe and accurately labeled


WordPressWhatFishIsThat
04/21/2014 01:00 PM EDT
Using some of the technology used in mapping the human genome, FDA scientists are working to create DNA barcodes for fish.
The high-tech effort is aimed to preventing fraud, including the substitution of a cheap fish for an expensive one, and preventing illness.

FDA Logo

Deportation by Design …foreboding?


| By CAP Action War Room in 2015

Rather Than Tackle Immigration Reform, GOP Wants To Risk National Security For Mass Deportations

For the last year and a half, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said in a number of forums that he wants to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Rather than pass the bipartisan immigration reform plan approved by the Senate, however, Boehner sat on his hands and let that bill expire with the end of the last Congress. Now, in week two of the new Congress, Republicans on Capitol Hill have taken an approach that makes it crystal clear that any rhetoric about the need for immigration reform is nothing but lip service.

As part of the must-pass funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, the House GOP has introduced a provision that regressively seeks to repeal the President’s immigration policies, effectively threatening mass deportations, exposing millions of American families to potential separation, and putting our national security at risk. As we saw in France last week, keeping the country safe from terrorism is imperative, and threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security over common-sense immigration priorities is shamefully irresponsible.

The Republican deportation plan has three main components to increase deportations:

  • First, Republicans want to effectively repeal the President’s executive action that is expected to shield nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. This group consists of parents of U.S. citizens, as well as DREAMers who were not originally eligible for the 2012 DACA program.
  • Second, the bill would also effectively repeal DACA, exposing over 600,000 DREAMers to the threat of deportation once again.
  • Third, House Republicans are trying to undo DHS’s enforcement priorities, which target serious offenders rather than indiscriminately going after long-time residents or family members.

When you add all these measures up, you get a near-total repeal of federal immigration policies that the Obama administration has built in light of Congress’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. That amounts to more of the same from Republicans, who for years have attacked immigrants and their families, whether through repeated votes against DACA or 25-state partisan lawsuit against the President’s executive action.

This policy doesn’t just hurt families, it also hurts our national security. Allowing low-priority immigrants to come forward, pass background checks, and request deferred action means fewer people living under the radar, beyond the reach of law enforcement.

BOTTOM LINE: After refusing to allow a vote on a bipartisan immigration reform bill last year, House Republicans now want to cement the status quo in pursuit of their extreme agenda of mass deportations. Instead of supporting actions that would help keep families together, make our country more secure, and ensure that everyone is paying their taxes, Republicans are playing politics with critically important national security funding at a time when we remain on high alert for terrorist threats. It is irresponsible, it is reckless and it is a waste of time that should instead be spent passing bipartisan, comprehensive reform.