Dozens of players and agents have taken to Twitter during the N.F.L.’s labor strife, giving fans an unvarnished view of their thoughts.

See the original post:
N.F.L. Labor Dispute Plays Out on Twitter

Andrew asked about Grant’s thoughts on Texas and secession. I present the following words from Grant’s memoir. This has always struck me as one of the most eloquent defenses of the Union which I’ve ever seen. I haven’t read enough Jefferson, but I have to believe that Grant is one of the greatest writers to ever occupy the White House. This is the writer enlisting the entire arsenal–literature, legal theory, history and memory all in one. It’s also, interestingly enough, a reminder for why, at this moment in history, I’m a liberal.  This is really long. As always, feel free to skip the post. I’m going to turn off comments for an hour after this is published, to give those who are interested time to digest their thoughts. There’s a lot here : Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.  The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders.  It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship–on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror–must be the result.  In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,–”We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer.” Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,–”Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us.”  Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers. The framers were wise in their generation and wanted to do the very best possible to secure their own liberty and independence, and that also of their descendants to the latest days.  It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies. At the time of the framing of our constitution the only physical forces that had been subdued and made to serve man and do his labor, were the currents in the streams and in the air we breathe. Rude machinery, propelled by water power, had been invented; sails to propel ships upon the waters had been set to catch the passing breeze–but the application of stream to propel vessels against both wind and current, and machinery to do all manner of work had not been thought of. The instantaneous transmission of messages around the world by means of electricity would probably at that day have been attributed to witchcraft or a league with the Devil. Immaterial circumstances had changed as greatly as material ones.  We could not and ought not to be rigidly bound by the rules laid down under circumstances so different for emergencies so utterly unanticipated. The fathers themselves would have been the first to declare that their prerogatives were not irrevocable. They would surely have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed. I traveled through the Northwest considerably during the winter of 1860-1. We had customers in all the little towns in south-west Wisconsin, south-east Minnesota and north-east Iowa. These generally knew I had been a captain in the regular army and had served through the Mexican war. Consequently wherever I stopped at night, some of the people would come to the public-house where I was, and sit till a late hour discussing the probabilities of the future.  My own views at that time were like those officially expressed by Mr. Seward at a later day, that “the war would be over in ninety days.” I continued to entertain these views until after the battle of Shiloh. I believe now that there would have been no more battles at the West after the capture of Fort Donelson if all the troops in that region had been under a single commander who would have followed up that victory.   There is little doubt in my mind now that the prevailing sentiment of the South would have been opposed to secession in 1860 and 1861, if there had been a fair and calm expression of opinion, unbiased by threats, and if the ballot of one legal voter had counted for as much as that of any other. But there was no calm discussion of the question. Demagogues who were too old to enter the army if there should be a war, others who entertained so high an opinion of their own ability that they did not believe they could be spared from the direction of the affairs of state in such an event, declaimed vehemently and unceasingly against the North; against its aggressions upon the South; its interference with Southern rights, etc., etc.  They denounced the Northerners as cowards, poltroons, negro-worshippers; claimed that one Southern man was equal to five Northern men in battle; that if the South would stand up for its rights the North would back down. Mr. Jefferson Davis said in a speech, delivered at La Grange, Mississippi, before the secession of that State, that he would agree to drink all the blood spilled south of Mason and Dixon’s line if there should be a war. The young men who would have the fighting to do in case of war, believed all these statements, both in regard to the aggressiveness of the North and its cowardice. They, too, cried out for a separation from such people. The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre–what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction.  I am aware that this last statement may be disputed and individual testimony perhaps adduced to show that in ante-bellum days the ballot was as untrammelled in the south as in any section of the country; but in the face of any such contradiction I reassert the statement. The shot-gun was not resorted to. Masked men did not ride over the country at night intimidating voters; but there was a firm feeling that a class existed in every State with a sort of divine right to control public affairs. If they could not get this control by one means they must by another. The end justified the means. The coercion, if mild, was complete.  There were two political parties, it is true, in all the States, both strong in numbers and respectability, but both equally loyal to the institution which stood paramount in Southern eyes to all other institutions in state or nation. The slave-owners were the minority, but governed both parties. Had politics ever divided the slave-holders and the non-slave-holders, the majority would have been obliged to yield, or internecine war would have been the consequence. I do not know that the Southern people were to blame for this condition of affairs.  There was a time when slavery was not profitable, and the discussion of the merits of the institution was confined almost exclusively to the territory where it existed. The States of Virginia and Kentucky came near abolishing slavery by their own acts, one State defeating the measure by a tie vote and the other only lacking one. But when the institution became profitable, all talk of its abolition ceased where it existed; and naturally, as human nature is constituted, arguments were adduced in its support. The cotton-gin probably had much to do with the justification of slavery. The winter of 1860-1 will be remembered by middle-aged people of to-day as one of great excitement. South Carolina promptly seceded after the result of the Presidential election was known.  Other Southern States proposed to follow. In some of them the Union sentiment was so strong that it had to be suppressed by force. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, all Slave States, failed to pass ordinances of secession; but they were all represented in the so-called congress of the so-called Confederate States. The Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of Missouri, in 1861, Jackson and Reynolds, were both supporters of the rebellion and took refuge with the enemy. The governor soon died, and the lieutenant-governor assumed his office; issued proclamations as governor of the State; was recognized as such by the Confederate Government, and continued his pretensions until the collapse of the rebellion.  The South claimed the sovereignty of States, but claimed the right to coerce into their confederation such States as they wanted, that is, all the States where slavery existed. They did not seem to think this course inconsistent. The fact is, the Southern slave-owners believed that, in some way, the ownership of slaves conferred a sort of patent of nobility–a right to govern independent of the interest or wishes of those who did not hold such property. They convinced themselves, first, of the divine origin of the institution and, next, that that particular institution was not safe in the hands of any body of legislators but themselves. Meanwhile the Administration of President Buchanan looked helplessly on and proclaimed that the general government had no power to interfere; that the Nation had no power to save its own life.  Mr. Buchanan had in his cabinet two members at least, who were as earnest–to use a mild term–in the cause of secession as Mr. Davis or any Southern statesman. One of them, Floyd, the Secretary of War, scattered the army so that much of it could be captured when hostilities should commence, and distributed the cannon and small arms from Northern arsenals throughout the South so as to be on hand when treason wanted them. The navy was scattered in like manner. The President did not prevent his cabinet preparing for war upon their government, either by destroying its resources or storing them in the South until a de facto government was established with Jefferson Davis as its President, and Montgomery, Alabama, as the Capital.  The secessionists had then to leave the cabinet. In their own estimation they were aliens in the country which had given them birth. Loyal men were put into their places. Treason in the executive branch of the government was estopped. But the harm had already been done. The stable door was locked after the horse had been stolen. During all of the trying winter of 1860-1, when the Southerners were so defiant that they would not allow within their borders the expression of a sentiment hostile to their views, it was a brave man indeed who could stand up and proclaim his loyalty to the Union.  On the other hand men at the North–prominent men–proclaimed that the government had no power to coerce the South into submission to the laws of the land; that if the North undertook to raise armies to go south, these armies would have to march over the dead bodies of the speakers. A portion of the press of the North was constantly proclaiming similar views. When the time arrived for the President-elect to go to the capital of the Nation to be sworn into office, it was deemed unsafe for him to travel, not only as a President-elect, but as any private citizen should be allowed to do. Instead of going in a special car, receiving the good wishes of his constituents at all the stations along the road, he was obliged to stop on the way and to be smuggled into the capital. He disappeared from public view on his journey, and the next the country knew, his arrival was announced at the capital. There is little doubt that he would have been assassinated if he had attempted to travel openly throughout his journey. 

Read the original:
The Literary Heroism Of U.S. Grant

Even though Arizona Chief U.S. District Judge John M. Roll was not the intended target of Jared Lee Loughner’s assualt Saturday morning, the Tucson massacre has raised legitimate questions about judicial protection and security. On Sunday, I asked another federal trial judge, who, like Judge Roll, has faced his share of threats over the years, to share with me a few of his thoughts about what happened. He responded: “What is not thought of or talked about relative to these threats and follow-up protection is the effect on a judge’s ability to think about the cases and the law.  With gun toting Deputy Marshals, good people all, within arm’s reach, it’s pretty hard to think about anything other than security.  The whole experience is very distracting and the public suffers in the sense that the judge can’t do his/her best in such circumstances.  With Judge Roll’s death and the possibilty of copycat activity, I’m sure that all judges are to some extent, some more than others, distracted.  What is virtually certain is that the support units of the court such as the U.S. Marshal’s Service and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will be much more distracted from their appointed rounds.” I suspect that some judges are more distracted than others this week. It’s also a good bet, from the statistics, that at least one more judge has been threatened, in some fashion, since Saturday. I hope the Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, the U.S. Marshals Service and the nation’s tribunes don’t forget that – and Judge Roll – when they begin to respond to Tucson in deeds, not words.

See the article here:
In Wake of Tucson Shootings, a ‘Distracted’ Time For Judges

After staying largely mum on the political scene since leaving office almost two years ago, former President George W. Bush will reveal his thoughts on the most historic — and controversial — parts of his presidency with the release of his memoir Tuesday.

Go here to read the rest:
In book, Bush defends waterboarding

We sit down with R.E.M.’s frontman to learn about his latest creative initiative When we found out that Michael Stipe was visiting Levi’s photo workshop in NYC to conduct a project of his own last Friday, we of course headed down to learn more. There within the tall white walls of the former gallery, dozens of young creative types lined up, all anxiously awaiting their brush with one of American music’s greats. As participants full of awe and admiration reached the front of the line, 7-inches and ‘zines piled up next to Stipe, who quietly greeted each person, explaining how they would take the next photo before sitting for the following one. After the last subject shuffled through, we sat down with the man whose career spans musician, filmmaker and artist to learn more about what brought him there, his thoughts on brand collaborations and karaoke. What inspired you about the space initially? It’s got a great provenance in that most New Yorkers know it as Deitch Projects, so some of the creative stuff that’s happened in this particular space is pretty legendary and this is a pretty awesome follow-up. It’s a very different thing, but I like the openness of it. I guess Levi’s is paying for it, but I think it’s really cool—whoever had the idea to do it. For our generation, working with brands was really problematic, no one wanted to be a sellout. But more and more that seems to be just what’s happening, do you still have a choice? I think you do have a choice and my band R.E.M. for instance, have never accepted any endorsement for any purpose that was not artistic. So the line that we draw is a fine line, but anything that is an artform or anything that is artistic or creative, like a film or TV show or some collaboration that makes sense, we’re okay with lending or allowing our music to be used, or our name to be used for something like that as opposed to having a tour sponsored by a brand. Obviously, this is somewhere in that gray area and that’s part of what makes it a little bit interesting. It’s responding to the needs of the market in the 21st century, but it happens to be a very cool company that’s doing it and it seems fairly no-strings-attached. So I’m happy to participate. How did the space inspire what you’re doing here? This thing? This very simply is a response to a moment in time. In 2010 we find ourselves in—it’s not a DMZ, it’s not a no man’s land—it’s like a middle space between what is still photography and what is a moving image. Technology has advanced to the point now that the most recent professional cameras actually don’t take still images as much they take short films and then you find the frame that you want to be a still image. I think that 10 or 12 years from now that is going to radically alter the way we think about what a still image is. And so what we did today is something that goes back to the very beginning of moving imagery with Eadweard Muybridge of course. It takes this very simple idea of a still image and animates it simply. In our case, we’re putting it through a Mac and doing a repetitive action that’s easy to understand. How did you choose the subjects? I just wanted it to feel really democratic, kind of like the space. And I didn’t want to do anything myself, I didn’t really want to own it. I’m happy to own the idea or to have participated in the idea, but I didn’t feel the need to take a picture or be one of the participants in the piece itself. I like how in a way it’s a little bit like a self-portrait daisy chain. I think that term has good and then very sexual connotations, it doesn’t have to have sexual connotations! If there’s a bad connotation, please strike that remark. Your image is being taken quite democratically by the next person in line, who takes the next person in line. As an artist I’m thinking about and dealing right now in sculpture with the bust in history. I’m not certain that there’s a 21st-century response to what a bust is as a sculptural thing. What is the historical significance of the bust that inspires you? Before photography and moving film there were more limited ways in which to capture someone’s likeness. In the case of world leaders, death masks were made—or life masks, in the case of William Blake. I’ve seen a copy that Patti Smith took and made into her version of a 21st-century bust. This would be in a way, research for me on my version of a 21st-century bust. I’m actually coming away from this with this feeding the other work I’m doing outside of music. This is an idea at the moment. The only sculptures that people know of mine are actually quite limited. There are no busts, that’ll come this year. Why bust as opposed to a portrait? It allows me to be able to see—if I’m looking at someone—maybe they’ve got a great personality, but I’m looking at them and going, is this someone who from three dimensions would create an amazing piece that would speak beyond me or beyond my desires as an artist, but might provide comment or commentary or inspire other people who have no idea who this person was. So it’s taking something that’s quite subjective and trying to, in a very positive way, objectify it. Do you mind telling us about your tattoo? This was one I had done in the early ’90s, it was maybe 1993 or ’94. Now it’s a part of me, I don’t remember the original intent. I don’t think it matters. What’s your favorite song for karaoke? Oh, good one. ‘Justify My Love’ by Madonna. It’s so retarded, it’s spoken word so you can really have fun with it if you’ve had a few beers too many, and people respond to it well. The easy thing for me is Jimmy Webb songs, Glenn Campbell songs that he wrote because I can actually hit the notes…unless they pitch it higher or lower than my particular range. Photos by Karen Day

Go here to read the rest:
An Interview with Michael Stipe

The Democrats were lying in wait for John Boehner when the Republican leader of the House announced that he would address the subject of congressional reform in a speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute .

Here is the original post:
John Boehner’s useful thoughts on fixing Congress

Should he run for mayor of Chicago, it seems Rahm Emanuel won’t necessarily be missed: The Financial Times points to three problems with Rahm’s tenure as chief of staff-and backs them up with anonymous trash-talking. “Rahm cannot keep his thoughts…

Excerpt from:
White House Officials Trash Rahm