Author, book reviewer, historian, tour guide and tweaker of accepted sensibilities.
Radney's show at the Windjammer last night (May 14) was outstanding!
Come take a tour with almost any carriage company and we'll tell you a lot more interesting stories about more interesting buildings on that stretch of King Street. Take my night time walking tour and you're hear the REAL interesting stories of those same buildings.
I am using Leah's own standards for choosing reading material. I will refuse to read her new book because I disagree with her. After all, if Leah is going to be so close-minded not to read Orson Scott Card (or see a movie based on his novel) due his Mormon beliefs, I can decide not to read her Zombie fiction because of her close-minded attitude.
What a close-minded person you are. I thought liberals patted themselves on the back on how "inclusive" they are. Not really. Only inclusive with someone you agree with.
If I avoided the writers (and musicians!) I politically disagreed with, I'd have never have read most of the "canon" of American lit, or listened to the great music of the 20th century. As a true liberal (by the way, go look up the actual definition) I will read anything that I find interesting. It's only afterward that I can discard the political bias in the work. I just finished re-reading Pat Conroy's "Beach Music." Aside from how bad the novel bogs down in the second half, his knee-jerk 1960s liberal sensibilities make the book embarrassing. Particularly when he spends half of the book complaining how much he HATES the 60s, but he is the perfect child of the era.
As an author of five non-fiction books, I find it instructive that someone who is an author (and a novelist) is willing to NOT read a book because it offends you.
Just wondering why it took Chris this long to figure out that WTMA is a lost cause. I stopped listening after the third day of Dixon/Storey/Bernardi regime. Then ... they got rid of Boortz during his retirment run and replaced him by Geraldo (really Geraldo????!!!!) and of course there is always the painful politcian, Huckstabee to contend with. Sad day for Charleston that the mighty TMA is no longer so mighty.
First off: I am an eighth generation SC native and I've always been bemused by the southerners who claim the North started the War. What aggressive move did the North make to force Beauregard to fire on Ft. Sumter?
Did Ft. Sumter fire at the Confederate batteries on James Island or Sullivan's Island? No.
Did the Northern re-supply armada actually try to land on Ft. Sumter or fire on Confederate batteries? No.
On April 10, 1861, Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard: “Under no circumstance are you to allow provisions to be sent to Fort Sumter. I order you to demand the immediate evacuation of the fort, and to attack if refused.”
Beauregard demanded the surrender, Maj. Anderson refused, and Confederate troops fired on Ft. Sumter. Yep, sounds like the North started the war to me.
The Southern states preached State's Rights and Nullification since the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, but didn't want to support state's rights for other states if it involved the fugitive slave law. Ohio and Pennsylvania refused to support the Federal Fugitive Slave Law, but the state's rights Southerners demanded they support it, even though they were against several other Federal laws. Which is it: are you FOR state's rights or are you AGAINST state's rights? You can't pick and choose.
SC Congressman, Lawrence Keitt: "African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South, and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. We of the South contend that slavery is a right, and that this is a confederate republic of sovereign states."
Virginia Confd. Senator, Robert Hunter: “If we didn’t go to war to save our slaves, what did we go to war for?"
Confd. Col. John S. Mosby wrote in 1907: "The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."
I invite everyone to go read the DECLARATION OF IMMEDIATE CAUSES published after SC seceded. Slavery is mentioned in the 1st paragraph and more than 1/3 of the document is concerning with slavery.
I've always found it ironic that the South were spoiling for a War, and got it but after they lost, they managed to spent the next 150 years complaining about it. Learn your history and move on.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper