The Wrightwing

Wanna have one?

Just watch THIS

You didn’t really want to sleep tonight, now did you?

Hat tip boingboing

Please write the Sci Fi Channel to protest their presenting WRESTLING instead of science fiction:

What the heck are you doing now?

It was bad enough when you put on Jonathan Edwards cynical and fraudulent predation of the gullible, vulnerable and emotionally scarred, or that inane Scare Tactics show, or that Ghost Busters stupidity.

Now WRESTLING?

Have you gone out of your collective mind?

I’ll bet you thought the Pontiac Aztec was a good idea too.

What next? Live Call-in Astrology with a Caribbean palm reader?

Stop it. Stop it now and get beck to real Science Fiction. Even Plan 9 from Outer Space would be preferable.

In disgust,

Tom Wright

Write them here: Feedback at Sci Fi

Wherein I refute a modern connection, and expose an ancient and hidden one.

The recent premier of HBO’s new show Big Love has revived two controversies in conversations of late.

First, of course, is the morality and legal status of polygamy.
Second is the red herring in the debate over gay marriage, that G.M. would lead to all sorts of depravity, polygamy being perhaps the least objectionable.

Addressing these are two posts by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Krauthammer.

Krauthammer starts with:

In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

…

What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.

Sullivan, while stating he believes polygamy is a choice, whereas homosexuality is not, answers with:

I think legalizing such arrangements is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.). I also think it’s reasonable for society to say to a heterosexual polygamist: we won’t let you legally marry more than one person, but we encourage you to marry one.

Althouse points out what so many forget, that marriage is as much, if not more, about economics than about child rearing and love. Volokh chimes in as well.

Homosexual relationships have indeed been accepted, institutionalized and even encouraged in the past. Ancient Greece is perhaps the most well known example. And considering that ancient Greece is one of the foundations of western liberal society, perhaps the US Military should have a rethink about don’t ask, don’t tell. Students of ancient cultures can point to others. While marriage was a child bearing institution, homosexuality was such an ingrained part of Greek culture that it all but a part of marriage. Polyandry is less common, but not unheard of.

What gay-marriage proponents are arguing for is full legal rights equal to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. I can hardly blame them.

But to claim that the gay marriage discussion that is going on now in our society is responsible for the HBO program or any sort of attempt to legalize polygamy is putting the cart before the horse. In todays America, it is apparently often referred to as Polyamory.

Polygamy was legal in Utah before the Church of Latter Day Saints, (LDS or Mormon), hungry for legitimacy and the benefits that statehood would bring, agreed to change it’s own precepts and ban polygamy from it’s canon. This was all done with a wink and a nod, since polygamy was widely practiced behind the scenes by the mainstream membership, and the leadership, for decades after that.

Polygamy has also been part of many cultures throughout history up to today. Currently, only Islamic cultures and fundamentalist Mormon/LDS sects practice it openly. Though there are other small areas as well. The form that is practiced though, is in most cases, an atrocity that is akin to slavery and child rape. This is documented in parts of Under the Banner of Heaven : A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer. A worthwhile read for anyone interested in either polygamy or religious extremism.

Since polygamy existed in this country before any sort of talk of gay marriage arose, and calls for the legalization of polygamy have occurred since the inception of the LDS, I think these are separate issues. They are related in that they both address one the the most personal aspects of life, but in that only.

So: Should polygamy be legalized? Provided we are talking about adults, yes.

Like all peaceful activities driven underground by criminalization, those that continue the activity tend to be those with little concern for laws or how much they may harm others. This is why we see polygamy practiced in the monstrous manner of the fundamentalist LDS adherents throughout the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Since they have no recourse to the law, and also must keep their life style hidden, they also hide abuses. Few, if any, polygamists will report an abusive neighbor for fear of having vengeance taken upon them by others in the community, either directly or by being brought to the attention of the law. So abuses like underage girls being forcibly ‘married’, (raped), traded between ‘husbands’, and even sanctioned incest, can occur. All protected by a climate of fear imposed by a corrupt hierarchy protected by a Mafia-like society that uses fear of the government as a tool of intimidation.

But if this were legalized for adults, that enter these arrangements consensually, with full knowledge of their rights, their legal protections, and with the right to leave the arrangement legally and with police protection of need be, we could all but wipe out the hideous slavery that polygamy often is today.

By legalizing it, we can eliminate the evil practices of those child predators and slavers that infest that community, and protect the weak and vulnerable, adults and children alike.

Now many would argue that monogamy is the norm in human relationships, and I agree. On the surface, at least.

Polygamy is actually going on all the time. It is just hidden under the mask of monogamy.

How so? Well, according to many studies, up to 30 percent of children are not the biological offspring of the men thought to be their fathers:

In the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project in which his students were to find out the blood types of their parents. The students were then to use this information to deduce their own blood types (because a gene from each parent determines your blood type, in most instances only a certain number of combinations are possible). Instead, 30 per cent of the students discovered their dads were not their biologically fathers.

“The classroom was, of course, not the ideal place to find out this information,” said Prof. Dickens, who is often consulted on ethical issues by geneticists at the Hospital for Sick Children.

.

This has led to a surge in paternity fraud cases, where men who have been forced to pay support for children not their own, are starting to rebel.
The truth will set you free! And save your bank account as well, it appears.

So it would appear that monogamy is merely a way for male Lotharios that are successful in the mating game to get cuckolds to bear the expense and effort needed to raise the Lotharios offspring. Much in the same way that a yellow-billed cuckoo or a cowbird may lay its eggs in the nest of another bird, forcing the care of the chicks to someone else.

No wonder there is such a prejudice against polygamy. It might actually force the fathers of children to marry the mothers of all the children they spawn, instead of parasiting off of poor shlubs dumb enough to think that child with hair that does not match anyone in his or his wifes families is really due to a recessive trait, instead of due to the CEO in the boardroom or the neighbor at the local bar.

It is rare that I find commercials on TV of any merit, most are dull and pedestrian. But United Airlines has had some of the best commercials I have seen over the past few years, all using animation. They are sophisticated, have class, a bit of whimsey, and tell a story all in a few brief seconds. The latest one I have seen is the best yet using hand posed paper-board cutouts and stop animation:

Dragon in Windows Media format

Dragon in Quicktime format

Precisely.

Cable channel Sci Fi Channel has announced that it will carry the newly revived British science fiction series Dr. Who starting in March 2006 on Fridays.

Now, I am an old Whovian, (Dr. Who fan), starting, as did most U.S. fans, with the Tom Baker version, (the fourth Doctor), followed later by runs of older versions as well as succeeding versions with Peter Davison, (Fifth Doctor), Colin Baker, (Sixth Doctor), Sylvester McCoy, (Seventh Doctor), though I missed the Eight Doctor, Paul McGann. So this announcement was pleasant news to me, as it offered the opportunity to renew my acquaintance with a fictional character and his imagined world that I remembered with fondness.

A brief history: The old series ended in 1989 when it went on a hiatus that ended being rather permanent. This series was full of wonderfully campy action, filled with interesting plots, and low production values. Many of the alien characters looked much like paper-mache projects from grade school art classes, which was a big part of the charm. At the same time, it was not dumbed down for children, and was very enjoyable for adults. Follow the link previous for a fan site with more information.

I have seen the first season of the new Dr. Who series. Since I have seen only the British version, it is possible there will be differences from what the Sci Fi Channel shows, but I doubt any changes will be more than minor. There is zero nudity or serious cuddling between characters that our rather prudish U.S. censors may object to out of fear of the christian right and other blue noses. What violence there is, is hardly graphic, mostly directed towards objects and not people, and largely seen from a distance.

The production values are much higher than in the old series. While the Doctors vehicle, the TARDIS, looks the same from the outside, the inside has had a professional decorator redo it in sort of a Bauhaus meets Fritz Langs Metropolis as executed by an Elizabethan era cabinet maker.

The new season opens, and we learn some very sketchy details of what has occurred during the intervening years, the Doctor is now the last surviving Time Lord, his race and planet being wiped out, along with his arch-nemesis, the Dalek race. And we take off from there.

The Doctors new companion, Rose Tyler, is a delightfully zaftig, (in all the right places), young lady who will warm the hearts of any slightly dirty old men that used to watch the old series for glimpses of Ramana, Teegan and other well chosen companions. The Doctor always had good aesthetic taste in women. She is introduced right in episode one and remains for the entire first season, at least.

Which brings us to some problems.

The entire cast is made up of stereotypes that fit in with the politically correct, progressive lefts view of western society, both what is bad in it and what should be good in it.

The new Doctor is a much more aggressive, judgmental and arrogant character, much more willing to use condemnation and violence against his opponents, while at the same time remaining thoroughly unwilling to make a judgment between murder and defensive killing, except in the case of business people or supremacist individuals.

Rose Tyler is a spunky store clerk working in what seems to be a mid-scale department store in London, when she meets the Doctor. She lives with her mother, a very loving, if interfering, slightly ditsy retiree, (or non-working, at least).

Her boyfriend is a good looking, though weak-willed, person of color, who needs protection, comfort and security from Rose. Afraid to take action, it is always up to Rose to help him out.

A later companion for a couple episodes, Jack Harkness, is a male from the future, who is a mercenary looking to make a profit by selling a stolen spaceship to some marks he intends to cheat later. He is the progressive ideal of the redeemable rouge, a rake who is willing to flirt with any one, male or female, not necessarily limited to humans.

The males in the series, with the exception of the Doctor and Jack, are mostly either dumb and clueless, weak and needing help from women, or evil, venal business men.
The women are mostly strong, mostly noble and self sacrificing, and often burdened by dumb and greedy males.

Are we starting to see a pattern here?

Warning: Many spoilers in what follows.

(more…)

Give me a frickin break!

Christian asshat complains AOL’s new slogan takes his gods name in vain:

America Online is now acting like God – using what some consider to be His very name in a marketing pitch for e-mail, voice chat, video chat, instant messaging, text messaging and other forms of communication.

AIM’s new slogan is “I AM.”

Millar wonders if any of AOL’s marketing and planning directors ever went to Christian Sunday school or attended Jewish services.

He points out to AOL executives that “I AM” is the English translation of YaHWeH, the self-proclaimed name of God.

“He is the Creator and Savior of the world,” explains Millar. “He alone is to be worshipped. To take His name in vain, or use as a common thing is blasphemy, a vulgar sin of offense. Perhaps you have not read the Third Commandment, since they have removed it from so many public monuments in the last decade. But breaking it as a means of marketing your products offends the mind of everyone who worships Him.”

So why no protest over Popeye the Sailor? Oops. Too late. Looks like they already decided to spell it “I Yam” way back in the 30’s.

South Park ran an episode that seems to have offended some catholics. Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League:

… I asked Joseph Califano, a practicing Catholic and member of Viacom’s board of directors (Viacom is the parent company of Comedy Central) to issue a public condemnation of the ‘Bloody Mary’ episode; I also asked that he do whatever he could to pull any scheduled reruns of the episode.

So Comedy Central has bowed to pressure from a religious extremist group.

South Park has skewered many people. There was an episode where atheists and excreting feces from the mouth were equated. I know a lot of us were annoyed at that, but we did not complain or try to censor South Park.

There have been episodes that have skewered every one imaginable, so why is the Catholic League so different? Poow wittow baby hurt his feewings?
What a bunch of pussies. Can’t take a some one skewering you over your penchant for hysterical claims of miraculous crying and bleeding statuary? Too bad. Why does that give you the authority to demand someone censor a show?

Imagine if they were in charge of the country? There is a reason for the First Amendment, and this is it. While it does not apply to private companies, it does prevent the Catholic League, indeed any religious tyrant, from controlling our press.

Remember that the next time you ask for a christian country. You may not like who is in charge and what they do about YOUR version of christianity.

Oh MAN!

The WHO will tour in ‘06!
Probably with Zak Starkey on drums.

This is awsome news.

Plus, I was not aware of this, but Pete Townsend is serializing a novella he wrote at http://www.boywhoheardmusic.blogspot.com/. Not bad at all.

The kids are alright…

Update: Fixed first link

An interesting article over at Science News Online about sculpture created using abstract mathematical concepts realized using new 3-D ‘printing’ technology.

Like ‘Quintessence of Hedgehog’ by George W. Hart, all made from two mirror image pieces of acrylic:

He also has some links to hand crafted versions of his sculptures, done in Asia, as well as discussion of a long tradition of hand carved concentric sculptures, and how lathes were used to make them starting around 1600.

Some of the pieces made by Bathsheba Grossman, I have seen before earlier this year:

She also has some very nice acrylic pieces representing DNA, the Milky Way and other cosmic scale structures.

Read the main article and check out these links and others mentioned in the text to see some very interesting things merging science and art.

Reminder via geekpress

…and they seem to like my Chili post! W00T! Carnival fo the Recipes.

YUM!

I am sitting here on a cold eveining in New Jersey, reading, surfing and generally nerding out, with a mug of really yummy hot, mulled cider. Why this is not a more popular drink, I do not know.

Perhaps it is mixing the spices that is a bother, or heating it up.

Well, the spice mix is easy. There are many pre-mixed products out there, I am using this one, from Williams Sonoma, who have a store near my office. This may seem pricey, but if you add up the cost of buying the individual spices at the store, it is actually a fair price. And cost per cup is less than soda-pop. arguably healthier too. There are many others, check at your local market or on the web.

Yum, I say. Again, YUM!

First off, DON’T DO IT!

Remember those old MasterLock commersials where they shoot a padlock and it still holds fast?
No?
How about the movies where they show some actor shooting off a padlock to get access to some critical room?
Got it now? good.

Well, someone decided to test it:

“OP, I wonder how difficult it is to shoot a lock off? I’ve seen it done on TV and in movies, but wonder if it is as easy as they show it to be. How about if I send you some funds to buy some locks. Will you shoot them and report back?”

The only answer was, “Sure! Why not?”

This sounds like a job for Mythbusters. I think I will point them to it. They like anything that has a hint of mayhem to it.

Via boingboing

( I checked, lots of people have suggested this to them, so I hope they consider it)

Since I have the week off, I decided to spend today visiting the new Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Since I live only about 25 miles away, and the museum has a parking garage, I decided to drive in. It is possible to take mass transit, but inconvenient since I would have to take three trains: NJ Transit into Hoboken, PATH tube to Manhattan, and then a subway to a station two blocks or so away. Faster to drive, dunno about cost.

You need to purchase tickets for a specific time, which you can do on-line, so I did that Sunday night for 10:30 AM Monday. You need to use the same credit card to reserve a ticket and pick it up, unless you do this far enough in advance to have them mailed to you.

The entrance to the parking garage is on 81st street, but is marked only by a small sign. Since it is set back from the street by about 100 feet, across 30 feet of sidewalk and down a cobble drive that looks more foot path-like than streetish, you may miss it, so be alert for it. Clearance is s bit low, but I was able to fit my Dodge Dakota Quad-cab 4×4, with a raised cap in there safely. A full size 4×4 SUV or pick-up with a high cap may have a problem, so leave Bigfoot home. A 2 wheel drive full size would probably fit.

Like most big old buildings that have been added to for decades, this one is a maze. I was able to find the will-call kiosk by asking for directions only twice. Would have been only once if I hadn’t walked right past the 4 FOOT TALL SIGN that pointed the way. Even asking directions I get lost.

The museum has better heat than I remember, but my last visit was something like 3 decades ago. I had to carry my jacket, since I missed the coat check.

Any way, after asking directions 2 more times, and looking at the floor plan I picked up with the ticket, I managed to find the exhibit. There are no photos allowed in the exhibit according to the signs bearing a camera with an international circle-slash. There was some photo taking anyway, but maybe they had permission.

The exhibit itself is very nicely done, well laid out for the most part, and follows a logical progression, giving much information about Darwin, his family life, education and professional life. There are some personal artifacts as well, such notebooks, ledgers, and a few instruments. A recreation of his library where he worked, examples of things he collected, such as beetles, plant specimens, etc. One impressive specimen is a display of an armadillo the size of a Bison and two species of Rhea.

There is much information that was new to me, like his grandfather also thought there was something like evolution, but more along the lines of Lamarck, where changes caused by environment, like stretching to get food in high branches, could be passed on to later generations. The influence of Malthus and his use of pigeons to study genetic inheritance.

The insights into his family life are very interesting, not the least that, despite his grandfather being a proto-evolutionist and something of a naturalist himself, his father was not, and was against a lot of Darwin’s original interests. His theories caused worry to his wife and some friends, while others supported him. There was also the connection to the Wedgwood family of Wedgwood Pottery fame. The Darwin’s and Wedgwood’s inter-married a few times. There was a display of a very famous Wedgwood piece, as well as some small Wedgwood pieces in the Darwin shop hawking chatchkas at the exit to the exhibit.

There are presentations of the controversies over evolutionary theory and creationism, including the current putsch to get so-called ‘intelligent design’ injected into science criteria, which is very up to date. They explain what a theory is, what science is, and why ‘I.D.’ is not either.

They advertise live tortoises, iguana and frogs, but somehow I missed the tortoises even though I spent close to two hours going through the exhibit. There was probably another 4 foot sign I missed. They do have a tortoise-cam accessible here, though I have not seen any tortoises on it yet. I did see the iguana, a very impressive one that did more than just sit on a branch. The frogs were the most interesting, they varied in color according to what substrate they were sitting on in the exhibit.

If you want to go, some advice. I went during the week. Thinking it is a holiday week, I thought it would not be crowded, but I did not figure on schools. DUR!
It was great to see kids going through the exhibit, but most did not get much out of it. They rushed through, writing notes on questionnaires I gather their teachers gave them to fill in. Many spent more time socializing and chatting, in a very boisterous manner. So loud at times people were shouting at them to quit down. In other words, kids being kids. the best part was seeing some parents taking their kids there themselves, and spending time to explain what the exhibits were and what they meant. I highly recommend this over a school group. Perhaps weekends are quieter. The exhibit is open over the holiday weekend, though closed on Thanksgiving Day.

The food court there is about as good as a decent corporate cafeteria, burgers, sandwiches salad bar. I was hoping for something better, like a shopping mall type selection, but considering it is an institution, it wasn’t bad. My lunch, a burger, onion rings, bottle of iced tea and a Reese’s bar ran about $15, so a little pricey, but again, considering the venue, not unexpected.

I visited the various museum shops, bought a Darwin mug for the exhibit, but was unimpressed with them over all. Actually, I was quite disappointed. I was hoping for more interesting things, but maybe my tastes are not mainstream, or maybe the museum has a low opinion of it’s visitors tastes? There were far too many cutesy plush dolls, overpriced tea samplers and the like. The book selection was interesting, but my unread reading stack has over a dozen volumes as it is.

I also wandered around a bit and walked through a few other exhibits. The Blue Whale is still there, updated a few years ago and still very impressive. There are interesting geological displays. I did not wander through the dinosaurs or mammal exhibits, I wanted to avoid late afternoon traffic.

So total damage: Toll $7, ticket $25, lunch a little over $15, parking $32 = about $80 for five hours entertainment. Not too bad for NYC. A family visit would be more, but children tickets are discounted and parking is by the car, not the passenger.
I recommend this to anyone wanting more insight into Darwin, his life, and the theory of evolution. I really recommend doing it as a family activity with kids old enough to understand, but not so old to be bored, or old enough again, to no longer be bored.

Balko points to a new blog crated by the palyers on the wonderful HBO series Deadwood.

It is DEADWOOD BLOG.

I hope to see some posts on what goes on behind the scenes of this great show. One of the best things HBO has done, with some of the best characters in recent drama.

The new Bond…James Bond, is a Gun Fearing Weenie.

But he revealed in OK! magazine: “I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other.

“That’s a simple fact. I’ve seen a bullet wound and it was a mess. It was on a shoot and it scared me. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that’s what’s scary about them.”

So he hates a set of inanimate objects, and thinks bullets have a will of their own, and are capable of deliberately directing their own way to a target, intended or not.

I believe this is called superstition, which is a belief system of the ignorant. But then, he is an actor, who prefers make believe to reality, which lends great credence to the possibility he IS ignorant.

What I want to see, is Bond…James Bond, fight off the bad guys with a martini swizzle stick, while dialing 911, and waiting for the police to arrive. That’ll make a GREAT movie.

Via Andrew Sullivan by way of Hit and Run:

Two Chinese guys channel Milli Vanilli, and do it way better.

Hey, David Caradine has body-synched Shao-Lin monks for years with worse results.

Sorta.

Remember transparent aluminum from one of the Star Trek movies?

Air Force testing new transparent armor .

No to fictional after all.

Via Geek Press

OK, I finally saw it. Great themes of the dangers of authority, the dangers of rebellion and resistance to authority and what it takes to survive as a rebel. Likable and somewhat complex characters. I could see a lot more of this series either on the TV or in theaters. The film is kind of an epilogue of sorts, so a TV series would make more sense. I just wonder if anyone would pick it up.

Definitely worth the price of admission. For me it is worth NOT waiting for cable.

That being said, a bugaboo: SOUNDS IN SPACE

Whedon was good enough in the TV series that he was able to present compelling scenes in space ‘realistically’, in that he avoided sounds in the vacuum of space. In the film, not so much. Or perhaps too much. I can only surmise that studio idiots insisted on it, feeling that the great unwashed would be too ignorant to understand otherwise. One of the greatest films ever made, scifi or not, was 2001: a Space Odyssey. No sounds in space in that one, people understood this decades ago. Are we dumber now? Less sophisticated? Or are the studio big-nuts too arrogant, condescending and lacking in imagination to consider anything else?

Jeff at Alphecca offered a meme to his readers to list the American History books they have on their shelves that they would assign to a student they were teaching. Here is the list I posted, along with some others posted with which I agree, and with some additions. I am posting here with links to Barnes and Noble for ease of finding.

OK. For a start:

An Imperfect God by Henry Wiencek: Biography of George Washington and his relationship to slavery. A very eye opening book, and not in a bad way. Slavery was a far more complicated institution than is popularly portrayed. Washington was the only founder to free his slaves, even if it was after his death.

The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto: The Dutch founding of Manhattan before the Brits conquered it in 1664, starting with Hudson’s voyage. Fascinating and NOT the simplistic story taught in schools. That $24 for Manhattan island was not the price. It was akin to the little corporate gifts exchanged between tough negotiators after the signing of a much more complicated deal.

The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin by Benjamin Franklin. ’nuff said.

Benjamin Franklin by Walter Issacson

Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801-1805 by Joseph Wheelan: About Americas first foreign war. Ironically, and fore tellingly, with the Barbary pirates of North Africa.

John Adams by David McCullough

The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Rex, both by Edmund Morris. There is supposedly a third volume, not yet published, in the wings. I know Morris is controversial, but he does a good job here. Well written, not boring without being nutty like Dutch was.

Nothing Like It in the World by Stephen Ambrose. About the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad, and the men who did it. They were NOT the robber barons of yore. They certainly were not angels, but they overcame great difficulties to accomplish a great task.

Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment by Robert J. Cottrol. The title says it all. Shop carefully, most volumes are for libraries and universities and run $100. ISBN 0815316666 is the trade version, much cheaper.

Freethinkers: a history of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby. Starts with the founding runs right through to recent history. Covers the ebb and tide of religious revivalism, famous freethinkers, deists, agnostics and atheists in American history and their involvement with all sorts of movements throughout our history, both the good: abolition, womens suffrage, freedom of the press, and the bad: Communism, and how these people have been very often whitewashed out of history, including the Great Agnostic, the staunch Republican Robert Ingersoll.

In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage by Haynes and Klehr. The title says it all.

The Venona Secrets by Romerstein and Breindel. Based on the Venona Transcripts, decoded communiques between Soviets here and back in the USSR that were confirmed when the archives of the KGB and GRU were opened after the fall of the Soviet Union. In short, the Rosenbergs were guilty, McCarthy was right. Too bad McCarthy was such a slimy, demagogic, grandstanding waste of human DNA. It’s like finding out Clinton was right on China, (he wasn’t, but…)

There is so much more, but that is a start. Most are entertaining for anyone that likes reading. A some, like Gun Control and the Constitution, Venona and In Denial are longer term reads. Do a chapter and pick it up again a couple days later.

Here are some recommended by others, which I agree would be very good for a student to read, that I have either read, or they are on my stack or my shopping list:
The Federalist Papers
The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution

I would also add: The Bill of Rights with Pre-Amble
The Articles of Confederation, that preceded the Constitution and The Treaty of Tripoli

Democracy in America by Alexis de Toqueville

Common Sense by Thomas Paine, link goes to a collection that also includes The Age of Reason, The Crisis and Rights of Man, which I recommend as well

1776 by David McCullough

There are many, many more, some I have not heard of I will need to investigate, and there will no doubt be more added after this list. So go check it out and add your favorite American history books to the list.

updated links

YAY!

What? It’s not…? You’re kidding! Then why would they bother with this?:
Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

Ohhhh, I get it. So that’s why they call them neo-CONS!

Sheeesh.
via Drudge