text:
Select Search
World Factbook
Roget's Int'l Thesaurus
Bartlett's Quotations
Respectfully Quoted
Fowler's King's English
Strunk's Style
Mencken's Language
Cambridge History
The King James Bible
Oxford Shakespeare
Gray's Anatomy
Farmer's Cookbook
Post's Etiquette
Brewer's Phrase & Fable
Bulfinch's Mythology
Frazer's Golden Bough
All Verse
Dickinson, E.
Eliot, T.S.
Frost, R.
Hopkins, G.M.
Keats, J.
Lawrence, D.H.
Masters, E.L.
Sandburg, C.
Sassoon, S.
Whitman, W.
Wordsworth, W.
Yeats, W.B.
All Nonfiction
Harvard Classics
American Essays
Einstein's Relativity
Grant, U.S.
Roosevelt, T.
Wells's History
Presidential Inaugurals
All Fiction
Shelf of Fiction
Ghost Stories
Short Stories
Shaw, G.B.
Stein, G.
Stevenson, R.L.
Wells, H.G.
Harvard Classics
Edmund Burke
Reflections on the French Revolution
Edmund Burke
Reflections on the French Revolution.
The Harvard Classics.
Paras. 200224
Few barbarous conquerors have ever made so terrible a revolution in property. None of the heads of the Roman factions, when they established
crudelem illam hastam
in all their auctions of rapine, have ever set up to sale the goods of the conquered citizen to such an enormous amount. It must be allowed in favour of those tyrants of antiquity, that what was done by them could hardly be said to be done in cold blood. Their passions were inflamed, their tempers soured, their understandings confused, with the spirit of revenge, with the innumerable reciprocated and recent inflictions and retaliations of blood and rapine. They were driven beyond all bounds of moderation by the apprehension of the return of power with the return of property, to the families of those they had injured beyond all hope of forgiveness.
These Roman confiscators, who were yet only in the elements of tyranny, and were not instructed in the rights of men to exercise all sorts of cruelties on each other without provocation, thought it necessary to spread a sort of colour over their injustice. They considered the vanquished party as composed of traitors who had borne arms, or otherwise had acted with hostility, against the commonwealth. They regarded them as persons who had forfeited their property by their crimes. With you, in your improved state of the human mind, there was no such formality. You seized upon five millions sterling of annual rent, and turned forty or fifty thousand human creatures out of their houses, because such was your pleasure. The tyrant Harry the Eighth of England, as he was not better enlightened than the Roman Mariuses and Syllas, and had not studied in your new schools, did not know what an effectual instrument of despotism was to be found in that grand magazine of offensive weapons, the rights of men. When he resolved to rob the abbeys, as the club of the Jacobins have robbed all the ecclesiastics, he began by setting on foot a commission to examine into the crimes and abuses which prevailed in those communities. As it might be expected, his commission reported truths, exaggerations, and falsehoods. But truly or falsely, it reported abuses and offences. However, as abuses might be corrected, as every crime of persons does not infer a forfeiture with regard to communities, and as property, in that dark age, was not discovered to be a creature of prejudice, all those abuses (and there were enow of them) were hardly thought sufficient ground for such a confiscation as it was for his purpose to make. He therefore procured the formal surrender of these estates. All these operose proceedings were adopted by one of the most decided tyrants in the rolls of history, as necessary preliminaries, before he could venture, by bribing the members of his two servile houses with a share of the spoil, and holding out to them an eternal immunity from taxation, to demand a confirmation of his iniquitous proceedings by an act of Parliament. Had fate reserved him to our times, four technical terms would have done his business, and saved him all this trouble; he needed nothing more than one short form of incantation
Philosophy, Light, Liberality, the Rights of Men.
I can say nothing in praise of those acts of tyranny, which no voice has hitherto ever commended under any of their false colours; yet in these false colours an homage was paid by despotism to justice. The power which was above all fear and all remorse was not set above all shame. Whilst shame keeps its watch, virtue is not wholly extinguished in the heart; nor will moderation be utterly exiled from the minds of tyrants.
I believe every honest man sympathizes in his reflections with our political poet on that occasion, and will pray to avert the omen whenever these acts of rapacious despotism present themselves to his view or his imagination:
May no such storm
Fall on our times, where ruin must reform.
Tell me (my Muse) what monstrous dire offence,
What crimes could any Christian king incense
To such a rage? Was t luxury, or lust?
so temperate, so chaste, so just?
Were these their crimes? they were his own much more,
But wealth is crime enough to him thats poor.
This same wealth, which is at all times treason and
lese nation
to indigent and rapacious despotism, under all modes of polity, was your temptation to violate property, law, and religion, united in one object. But was the state of France so wretched and undone, that no other recourse but rapine remained to preserve its existence? On this point I wish to receive some information. When the states met, was the condition of the finances of France such, that, after economizing on principles of justice and mercy through all departments, no fair repartition of burthens upon all the orders could possibly restore them? If such an equal imposition would have been sufficient, you well know it might easily have been made. M. Necker, in the budget which he laid before the orders assembled at Versailles, made a detailed exposition of the state of the French nation.
If we give credit to him, it was not necessary to have recourse to any new impositions whatsoever, to put the receipts of France on a balance with its expenses. He stated the permanent charges of all descriptions, including the interest of a new loan of four hundred millions, at 531,444,000 livres; the fixed revenue at 475,294,000, making the deficiency 56,150,000, or short of £2,200,000 sterling. But to balance it, he brought forward savings and improvements of revenue (considered as entirely certain) to rather more than the amount of that deficiency; and he concludes with these emphatical words, (p. 39), Quel pays, Messieurs, que celui, où,
sans impôts
et avec de simples objets
on peut faire disparoître un deficit qui a fait tant de bruit en Europe. As to the reimbursement, the sinking of debt, and the other great objects of public credit and political arrangement indicated in Mons. Neckers speech, no doubt could be entertained, but that a very moderate and proportioned assessment on the citizens without distinction would have provided for all of them to the fullest extent of their demand.
If this representation of Mons. Necker was false, then the Assembly are in the highest degree culpable for having forced the king to accept as his minister, and since the kings deposition, for having employed, as
minister, a man who had been capable of abusing so notoriously the confidence of his master and their own; in a matter too of the highest moment, and directly appertaining to his particular office. But if the representation was exact, (as having always, along with you, conceived a high degree of respect for M. Necker, I make no doubt it was,) then what can be said in favour of those, who, instead of moderate, reasonable, and general contribution, have in cold blood, and impelled by no necessity, had recourse to a partial and cruel confiscation?
Was that contribution refused on a pretext of privilege, either on the part of the clergy, or on that of the nobility? No, certainly. As to the clergy, they even ran before the wishes of the third order. Previous to the meeting of the states, they had in all their instructions expressly directed their deputies to renounce every immunity, which put them upon a footing distinct from the condition of their fellow-subjects. In this renunciation the clergy were even more explicit than the nobility.
But let us suppose that the deficiency had remained at the fifty-six millions, (or £2,200,000 sterling), as at first stated by M. Necker. Let us allow that all the resources he opposed to that deficiency were impudent and groundless fictions; and that the Assembly (or their lords of articles
at the Jacobins) were from thence justified in laying the whole burthen of that deficiency on the clergy,yet allowing all this, a necessity of £2,200,000 sterling will not support a confiscation to the amount of five millions. The imposition of £2,200,000 on the clergy, as partial, would have been oppressive and unjust, but it would not have been altogether ruinous to those on whom it was imposed; and therefore it would not have answered the real purpose of the managers.
Perhaps persons unacquainted with the state of France, on hearing the clergy and the noblesse were privileged in point of taxation, may be led to imagine, that, previous to the Revolution, these bodies had contributed nothing to the state. This is a great mistake. They certainly did not contribute equally with each other, nor either of them equally with the commons. They both, however, contributed largely. Neither nobility nor clergy enjoyed any exemption from the excise on consumable commodities, from duties of custom, or from any of the other numerous
impositions, which in France, as well as here, make so very large a proportion of all payments to the public. The noblesse paid the capitation. They paid also a land-tax, called the twentieth penny, to the height sometimes of three, sometimes of four, shillings in the pound; both of them
impositions of no light nature, and no trivial produce. The clergy of the provinces annexed by conquest to France, (which in extent make about an eighth part of the whole, but in wealth a much larger proportion,) paid likewise to the capitation and the twentieth penny, at the rate paid by the nobility. The clergy in the old provinces did not pay the capitation; but they had redeemed themselves at the expense of about 24 millions, or a little more than a million sterling. They were exempted from the twentieths: but then they made free gifts; they contracted debts for the state; and they were subject to some other charges, the whole computed at about a thirteenth part of their clear income. They ought to have paid annually about forty thousand pounds more, to put them on a par with the contribution of the nobility.
When the terrors of this tremendous proscription hung over the clergy, they made an offer of a contribution, through the archbishop of Aix, which, for its extravagance, ought not to have been accepted. But it was evidently and obviously more advantageous to the public creditor than anything which could rationally be promised by the confiscation. Why was it not accepted? The reason is plainThere was no desire that the church should be brought to serve the state. The service of the state was made a pretext to destroy the church. In their way to the destruction of the church they would not scruple to destroy their country: and they have destroyed it. One great end in the project would have been defeated if the plan of extortion had been adopted in lieu of the scheme of confiscation. The new landed interest connected with the new republic, and connected with it for its very being, could not have been created. This was among the reasons why that extravagant ransom was not accepted.
The madness of the project of confiscation, on the plan that was first pretended, soon became apparent. To bring this unwieldy mass of landed property, enlarged by the confiscation of all the vast landed domain of the crown, at once into market, was obviously to defeat the profits proposed by the confiscation, by depreciating the value of those lands, and indeed of all the landed estates throughout France. Such as sudden diversion of all its circulating money from trade to land, must be an additional mischief. What step was taken? Did the Assembly, on becoming sensible of the inevitable ill effects of their projected sale, revert to the offers of the clergy? No distress could oblige them to travel in a course which was disgraced by any appearance of justice. Giving over all hopes from a general immediate sale, another project seems to have succeeded. They proposed to take stock in exchange for the church lands. In that project great difficulties arose in equalizing the objects to be exchanged. Other obstacles also presented themselves, which threw them back again upon some project of sale. The municipalities had taken an alarm. They would not hear of transferring the whole plunder of the kingdom to the stock-holders in Paris. Many of those municipalities had been (upon system) reduced to the most deplorable indigence. Money was nowhere to be seen. They were therefore led to the point that was so ardently desired. They panted for a currency of any kind which might revive their perishing industry. The municipalities were then to be admitted to a share in the spoil, which evidently rendered the first scheme (if ever it had been seriously entertained) altogether impracticable. Public exigencies pressed upon all sides. The minister of finance reiterated his call for supply with a most urgent, anxious, and boding voice. Thus pressed on all sides, instead of the first plan of converting their bankers into bishops and abbots, instead of paying the old debt, they contracted a new debt, at 3 per cent., creating a new paper currency, founded on an eventual sale of the church lands. They issued this paper currency to satisfy in the first instance chiefly the demands made upon them by the
bank of discount,
the great machine, or paper-mill, of their fictitious wealth.
The spoil of the church was now become the only resource of all their operations in finance, the vital principle of all their politics, the sole security for the existence of their power. It was necessary by all, even the most violent means, to put every individual on the same bottom, and to bind the nation in one guilty interest to uphold this act, and the authority of those by whom it was done. In order to force the most reluctant into a participation of their pillage, they rendered their paper circulation compulsory in all payments. Those who consider the general tendency of their schemes to this one object as a centre, and a centre from which afterwards all their measures radiate, will not think that I dwell too long upon this part of the proceedings of the National Assembly.
To cut off all appearance of connexion between the crown and public justice, and to bring the whole under implicit obedience to the dictators in Paris, the old independent judicature of the parliaments, with all its merits, and all its faults, was wholly abolished. Whilst the parliaments existed, it was evident that the people might some time or other come to resort to them, and rally under the standard of their ancient laws. It became however a matter of consideration that the magistrates and officers, in the courts now abolished,
had purchased their places
at a very high rate, for which, as well as for the duty they performed, they received but a very low return of interest. Simple confiscation is a boon only for the clergy;to the lawyers some appearances of equity are to be observed; and they are to receive compensation to an immense amount. Their compensation becomes part of the national debt, for the liquidation of which there is the one exhaustless fund. The lawyers are to obtain their compensation in the new church paper, which is to march with the new principles of judicature and legislature. The dismissed magistrates are to take their share of martyrdom with the ecclesiastics, or to receive their own property from such a fund, and in such a manner, as all those, who have been seasoned with the ancient principles of jurisprudence, and had been the sworn guardians of property, must look upon with horror. Even the clergy are to receive their miserable allowance out of the depreciated paper, which is stamped with the indelible character of sacrilege, and with the symbols of their own ruin, or they must starve. So violent an outrage upon credit, property, and liberty, as this compulsory paper currency, has seldom been exhibited by the alliance of bankruptcy and tyranny, at any time, or in any nation.
In the course of all these operations, at length comes out the grand
that in reality, and in a fair sense, the lands of the church (so far as anything certain can be gathered from their proceedings) are not to be sold at all. By the late resolutions of the National Assembly, they are indeed to be delivered to the highest bidder. But it is to be observed, that
a certain portion only of the purchase money is to be laid down.
A period of twelve years is to be given for the payment of the rest. The philosophic purchasers are therefore, on payment of a sort of fine, to be put instantly into possession of the estate. It becomes in some respects a sort of gift to them; to be held on the feudal tenure of zeal to the new establishment. This project is evidently to let in a body of purchasers without money. The consequence will be, that these purchasers, or rather grantees, will pay, not only from the rents as they accrue, which might as well be received by the state, but from the spoil of the materials of buildings, from waste in woods, and from whatever money, by hands habituated to the gripings of usury, they can wring from the miserable peasant. He is to be delivered over to the mercenary and arbitrary discretion of men, who will be stimulated to every species of extortion by the growing demands on the growing profits of an estate held under the precarious settlement of a new political system.
When all the frauds, impostures, violences, rapines, burnings, murders, confiscations, compulsory paper currencies, and every description of tyranny and cruelty employed to bring about and to uphold this Revolution, have their natural effect, that is, to shock the moral sentiments of all virtuous and sober minds, the abettors of this philosophic system immediately strain their throats in a declamation against the old monarchical government of France. When they have rendered that deposed power sufficiently black, they then proceed in argument, as if all those who disapprove of their new abuses must of course be partisans of the old; that those who reprobate their crude and violent schemes of liberty ought do be treated as advocates for servitude. I admit that their necessities to compel them to this base and contemptible fraud. Nothing can reconcile men to their proceedings and projects, but the supposition that there is no third option between them and some tyranny as odious as can be furnished by the records of history, or by the invention of poets. This prattling of theirs hardly deserves the name of sophistry. It is nothing but plain impudence. Have these gentlemen never heard, in the whole circle of the worlds of theory and practice, of anything between the despotism the monarch and the despotism of the multitude? Have they never heard of a monarchy directed by laws, controlled and balanced by the great hereditary wealth and hereditary dignity of a nation; and both again controlled by a judicious check from the reason and feeling of the people at large, acting by a suitable and permanent organ? Is it then impossible that a man may be found, who, without criminal ill intention, or pitiable absurdity, shall prefer such a mixed and tempered government to either of the extremes; and who may repute that nation to be destitute of all wisdom and of all virtue, which, having in its choice to obtain such a government with ease,
or rather to confirm it when actually possessed,
thought proper to commit a thousand crimes, and to subject their country to a thousand evils, in order to avoid it? Is it then a truth so universally acknowledged, that a pure democracy is the only tolerable form into which human society can be thrown, that a man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?
I do not know under what description to class the present ruling authority in France. It affects to be a pure democracy, though I think it in a direct train of becoming shortly a mischievous and ignoble oligarchy. But for the present I admit it to be a contrivance of the nature and effect of what it pretends to. I reprobate no form of government merely upon abstract principles. There may be situations in which the purely democratic form will become necessary. There may be some (very few, and very particularly circumstanced) where it would be clearly desirable. This I do not take to be the case of France, or of any other great country. Until now, we have seen no examples of considerable democracies. The ancients were better acquainted with them. Not being wholly unread in the authors, who had seen the most of those constitutions, and who best understood them, I cannot help concurring with their opinion, that an absolute democracy, no more than absolute monarchy, is to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy, than the sound constitution of a republic. If I recollect rightly, Aristotle observes, that a democracy has many striking points of resemblance with a tyranny.
Of this I am certain, that in a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority, whenever strong divisions prevail in that kind of polity, as they often must; and that oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. In such a popular persecution, individual sufferers are in a much more deplorable condition than in any other. Under a cruel prince they have the balmy compassion of mankind to assuage the smart of their wounds; they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings: but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes, are deprived of all external consolation. They seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species.
But admitting democracy not to have that inevitable tendency to party tyranny, which I suppose it to have, and admitting it to possess as much good in it when unmixed, as I am sure it possesses when compounded with other forms; does monarchy, on its part, contain nothing at all to recommend it? I do not often quote Bolingbroke, nor have his works in general left any permanent impression on my mind. He is a presumptuous and a superficial writer. But he has one observation, which, in my opinion, is not without depth and solidity. He says, that he prefers a monarchy to other governments; because you can better ingraft any description of republic on a monarchy than anything of monarchy upon the republican forms. I think him perfectly in the right. The fact is so historically; and it agrees well with the speculation.
I know how easy a topic it is to dwell on the faults of departed greatness. By a revolution in the state, the fawning sycophant of yesterday is converted into the austere critic of the present hour. But steady, independent minds, when they have an object of so serious a concern to mankind as government under their contemplation, will disdain to assume the part of satirists and declaimers. They will judge of human institutions as they do of human characters. They will sort out the good from the evil, which is mixed in mortal institutions, as it is in mortal men.
Your government in France, though usually, and I think justly, reputed the best of the unqualified or ill-qualified monarchies, was still full of abuses. These abuses accumulated in a length of time, as they must accumulate in every monarchy not under the constant inspection of a popular representative. I am no stranger to the faults and defects of the subverted government of France; and I think I am not inclined by nature or policy to make a panegyric upon anything which is a just and natural object of censure. But the question is not now of the vices of that monarchy, but of its existence. Is it then true, that the French government was such as to be incapable or undeserving of reform; so that it was of absolute necessity that the whole fabric should be at once pulled down, and the area cleared for the erection of a theoretic, experimental edifice in its place? All France was of a different opinion in the beginning of the year 1789. The instructions to the representatives to the states-general, from every district in that kingdom, were filled with projects for the reformation of that government, without the remotest suggestion of a design to destroy it. Had such a design been even insinuated, I believe there would have been but one voice, and that voice for rejecting it with scorn and horror. Men have been sometimes led by degrees, sometimes hurried, into things of which, if they could have seen the whole together, they never would have permitted the most remote approach. When those instructions were given, there was no question but that abuses existed, and that they demanded a reform; nor is there now. In the interval between the instructions and the Revolution, things changed their shape; and, in consequence of that change, the true question at present is, Whether those who would have reformed, or those who have destroyed, are in the right?
To hear some men speak of the late monarchy of France, you would imagine that they were talking of Persia bleeding under the ferocious sword of Tahmas Kouli Khân; or at least describing the barbarous anarchic despotism of Turkey, where the finest countries in the most genial climates in the world are wasted by peace more than any countries have been worried by war; where arts are unknown, where manufactures languish, where science is extinguished, where agriculture decays, where the human race itself melts away and perishes under the eye of the observer. Was this the case of France? I have no way of determining the question but by reference to facts. Facts do not support this resemblance. Along with much evil, there is some good in monarchy itself; and some corrective to its evil from religion, from laws, from manners, from opinions, the French monarchy must have received; which rendered it (though by no means a free, and therefore by no means a good, constitution) a despotism rather in appearance than in reality.
Among the standards upon which the effects of government on any country are to be estimated, I must consider the state of its population as not the least certain. No country in which population flourishes, and is in progressive improvement, can be under a very mischievous government. About sixty years ago, the Intendants of the generalities of France made, with other matters, a report of the population of their several districts. I have not the books, which are very voluminous, by me, nor do I know where to procure them, (I am obliged to speak by memory, and therefore the less positively,) but I think the population of France was by them, even at that period, estimated at twenty-two millions of souls. At the end of the last century it had been generally calculated at eighteen. On either of these estimations, France was not ill peopled. M. Necker, who is an authority for his own time at least equal to the Intendants for theirs, reckons, and upon apparently sure principles, the people of France, in the year 1780, at twenty-four millions six hundred and seventy thousand. But was this the probable ultimate term under the old establishment? Dr. Price is of opinion, that the growth of population in France was by no means at its acme in that year. I certainly defer to Dr. Prices authority a good deal more in these speculations, than I do in his general politics. This gentleman taking ground on M. Neckers data, is very confident that since the period of that ministers calculation, the French population has increased rapidly; so rapidly, that in the year 1789 he will not consent to rate the people of that kingdom at a lower number than thirty millions. After abating much (and much I think ought to be abated) from the sanguine calculation of Dr. Price, I have no doubt that the population of France did increase considerably during this later period: but supposing that it increased to nothing more than will be sufficient to complete the twenty-four millions six hundred and seventy thousand to twenty-five millions, still a population of twenty-five millions, and that in an increasing progress, on a space of about twenty-seven thousand square leagues, is immense. It is, for instance, a good deal more than the proportionable population of this island, or even than that of England, the best peopled part of the united kingdom.
It is not universally true, that France is a fertile country. Considerable tracts of it are barren, and labour under other natural disadvantages. In the portions of that territory where things are more favourable, as far as I am able to discover, the numbers of the people correspond to the indulgence of nature.
The Generality of Lisle (this I admit is the strongest example) upon an extent of four hundred and four leagues and a half, about ten years ago, contained seven hundred and thirty-four thousand six hundred souls, which is one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two inhabitants to each square league. The middle term for the rest of France is about nine hundred inhabitants to the same admeasurement.
I do not attribute this population to the deposed government; because I do not like to compliment the contrivances of men with what is due in a great degree to the bounty of Providence. But that decried government could not have obstructed, most probably it favoured, the operation of those causes, (whatever they were,) whether of nature in the soil, or habits of industry among the people, which has produced so large a number of the species throughout that whole kingdom, and exhibited in some particular places such prodigies of population. I never will suppose that fabric of a state to be the worst of all political institutions, which, by experience, is found to contain a principle favourable (however latent it may be) to the increase of mankind.
The wealth of a country is another, and no contemptible standard, by which we may judge whether, on the whole, a government be protecting or destructive. France far exceeds England in the multitude of her people; but I apprehend that her comparative wealth is much inferior to ours; that it is not so equal in the distribution, nor so ready in the circulation. I believe the difference in the form of the two governments to be amongst the causes of this advantage on the side of England. I speak of England, not of the whole British dominions; which, if compared with those of France, will, in some degree, weaken the comparative rate of wealth upon our side. But that wealth, which will not endure a comparison with the riches of England, may constitute a very respectable degree of opulence. M. Neckers book published in 1785,
contains an accurate and interesting collection of facts relative to public economy and to political arithmetic; and his speculations on the subject are in general wise and liberal. In that work he gives an idea of the state of France, very remote from the portrait of a country whose government was a perfect grievance, an absolute evil, admitting no cure but through the violent and uncertain remedy of a total revolution. He affirms, that from the year 1726 to the year 1784, there was coined at the mint of France, in the species of gold and silver, to the amount of about one hundred millions of pounds sterling.
Note 1.
The rest of the passage is this
Who having spent the treasures of his crown,
Condemns their luxury to feed his own.
And yet this act, to varnish oer the shame
Of sacrilege, must bear devotions name.
No crime so bold, but would be understood
A real, or at least a seeming good;
Who fears not to do ill, yet fears the name,
And, free from conscience, is a slave to fame.
Thus he the church at once protects, and spoils;
But princes swords are sharper than their styles.
And thus to th ages past he makes amends,
Their charity destroys, their faith defends.
Then did religion in a lazy cell,
In empty aery contemplation dwell;
And, like the block, unmoved lay; but ours,
As much too active, like the stork devours.
Is there no temperate region can be known,
Betwixt their frigid and our torrid zone?
Could we not wake from that lethargic dream,
But to be restless in a worse extreme?
And for that lethargy was there no cure,
But to be cast into a calenture;
Can knowledge have no bound, but must advance
So far, to make us wish for ignorance?
And rather in the dark to grope our way,
Than, led by a false guide, to err by day?
Who sees these dismal heaps, but would demand,
What barbarous invader sacked the land?
But when he hears, no Goth, no Turk did bring
This desolation, but a Christian king;
When nothing, but the name of zeal, appears
Twixt our best actions and the worst of theirs,
What does he think our sacrilege would spare,
When such th effects of our devotion are?
by S
Note 2.
Rapport de Mons. le Directeur-Général des Finances, fait par ordre du Roi à Versailles. Mai 5, 1789. [
Note 3.
In the constitution of Scotland, during the Stuart reigns, a committee sat for preparing bills; and none could pass, but those previously approved by them. This committee was called lords of articles. [
Note 4.
When I wrote this I quoted from memory, after many years had elapsed from my reading the passage. A learned friend has found it, and it is as follows:
The ethical character is the same; both exercise despotism over the better class of citizens; and decrees are in the one, what ordinances and arrêts are in the other: the demagogue too, and the court favourite, are not unfrequently the same identical men, and always bear a close analogy; and these have the principal power, each in their respective forms of government, favourites with the absolute monarch, and demagogues with a people such as I have described. Arist. Politic. lib. iv. cap. 4. [
Note 5.
De lAdministration des Finances de la France, par Mons. Necker, vol. i. p. 288. [
Note 6.
De lAdministration des Finances de la France, par Mons. Necker. [
Note 7.
Vol. iii. chap. 8 and chap. 9. [
· [
Top 150
] ·
World Lit


text:
About rubberpants
My irony detector just exploded. What a mess.
With the SCOTUS, Congress, and the Executive all snuggly in the pockets of the largest corporations the only thing standing between us and total destruction is the League of Women Voters. Go get 'em gals.
Are they ancient behemoths trying to squeeze every last cent out of mountainous hoards of back catalog music? No?
Then their opinions don't matter.
Besides, I'm pretty sure all those signatories just want free music. I mean, I haven't looked into it but I have no problem demonizing those who have other ideas. It makes not listening to them much easier.
Now I'm off to cloak myself in the self-righteousness of paid-for laws.
Wow, the sarcasm is strong with this one.
"but in general"
See, there's your problem.
You have to admit that bypassing citizen representatives and going directly to the nameless, low paid employees and appointees that actually have the guns is a pretty smart strategy. Satan is pleased.
The authors of the first amendment just wanted to download free music.
Tomorrow, a high-ranking TSA official will comment that approving this merger will most likely end the ban on liquids due to "awesomeness of business and just general goodness."
I think they are pushing so hard on this because they want to try to discourage individuals from leaking information in the future. Imagine if all the back-room deals, violations of the law, and instances of blatant self-enrichment weren't kept secret. The whole system would implode.
I think the answer is that the media gets special treatment because they determine, in a large measure, what citizens passively get to know about the government. Politicians treat the media industry well and good things get reported about them. In turn, the media treats the politicians well and then they get special laws and treaties passed for them.
I don't know why but this really rubs me the wrong way. They think they can just handle this law with the stroke of a pen? It's like they're groping in the dark for a solution. I'm touched that they would try but it just doesn't feel right. Take a peek guys, this is what naked ambition looks like.
Are suggesting that we should outlaw digital currencies?
Be sure to outlaw dancing there or people may get distracted.
Seriously, where's her unbridled greed?
I know several people doing very well selling $0.99 ebooks. They're eating the big publishers' lunch.
Lady Gaga just wants free music.
I can't wait to see the convoluted and obtuse gymnastics the anonymous coward squadron engages in to disagree with this article. Seriously, this is going to be awesome.
*gets popcorn*

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LOS ANGELES -- Two legendary actors -- Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow -- are competing for the supporting actor trophy this Oscar season.
Despite their pedigree -- Plummer has been acting in films for more than 50 years and is best known as Captain von Trapp in 1965's "The Sound of Music," and Von Sydow is closely associated with the seminal Swedish director Ingmar Bergman -- neither has won an Academy Award. But that's likely to change tonight.
Plummer has already won numerous awards for his turn as a widower who comes out of the closet in "Beginners," while Von Sydow has earned kudos as an elderly man who doesn't speak in "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close."
If either wins, he will become the oldest performer to garner an acting Oscar. Both are 82 years old, with Von Sydow, who turns 83 in April, eight months older than Plummer.
Here's a look at the 10 oldest Oscar winners in the competitive acting categories so far:
JESSICA TANDY: The British-born actress was 80 years and 252 days old when she won the lead actress Oscar for 1989's "Driving Miss Daisy." Not long after that, Tandy was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Tandy continued to work as she battled the disease, earning a supporting actress nomination for 1991's "Fried Green Tomatoes." She died in 1994.
- GEORGE BURNS: The beloved comedian, who was partnered with his wife, Gracie Allen, in films, vaudeville and TV, won the supporting actor Oscar as a member of an old comedy team reuniting for a TV special in 1975's "The Sunshine Boys." He was 80 years and 69 days when he picked up the Academy Award. Burns' film career took off, scoring a hit in 1977's "Oh, God!" and 1979's "Going in Style." He continued to work into his 90s. He died in 1996.
- MELVYN DOUGLAS: Best known for his romantic comedy roles in the 1930s in such classics as 1939's "Ninotchka," Douglas earned his first supporting actor award as the stern father in 1963's "Hud"; he won his second as a fragile businessman in 1979's "Being There" at the age of 79 years and nine days. He made four more features before his death in 1981.
- JOHN GIELGUD: Gielgud was already one of the most accomplished British stage, theater and TV actors when he won a supporting actor Oscar at the age of 77 and 349 days as the loving but acerbic butler in 1981's "Arthur." He had previously been nominated in this category for 1964's "Becket." He worked until his death in 2000.
- DON AMECHE: The mustachioed Ameche had been a big star at 20th Century Fox in the 1930s and '40s, best known for such musicals as 1941's "Moon Over Miami" and such dramatic fare as 1939's "The Story of Alexander Graham Bell." For his work in 1985's "Cocoon," he won the supporting actor Oscar at the age of 77 years and 297 days old. He played a senior citizen who encounters a fountain of youth -- one scene featured the actor break dancing. The Oscar rejuvenated his career. One of his best post-Oscar roles was in David Mamet's 1988 "Things Change." He continued to work until his death in 1993.
- PEGGY ASHCROFT: Ashcroft, a star of the British stage, had appeared in very few films when she won a supporting actress Oscar at the age of 77 years and 93 days for David Lean's final film, 1984's "Passage to India," She played a British woman traveling to India with her son's fiancee. She continued to work until 1989. She died in 1991.
- HENRY FONDA: The veteran superstar had largely been ignored by the academy, earning only a lead actor nomination for 1940's "The Grapes of Wrath" and a nod as producer of the 1957 best picture nominee "12 Angry Men." He finally won a lead actor Oscar at the age of 76 and 317 days for his role as the husband of Katharine Hepburn's character in 1981's "On Golden Pond." Fonda, though, was too frail to attend the 1982 ceremony, but his daughter Jane, who was nominated for supporting actress for the film, did. "Oh, Dad, I'm so happy and proud for you," she said. Henry Fonda died in August of that year.
- KATHARINE HEPBURN: Fonda's "Golden Pond" co-star also won the lead actress Oscar for the drama. It was her fourth win -- she was 74 years and 275 days old. And just as with the other three times she had won, Hepburn was nowhere to be found at the ceremony to pick up her Oscar. Hepburn continued to work in films, TV and even theater until 1994. She died in 2003.
- JACK PALANCE: The character actor, who had earned supporting actor nominations for 1952's "Sudden Fear" and 1953's "Shane," finally won a supporting actor Oscar at the age of 73 years and 41 days for his comedic turn as an old ranch hand in the 1991 hit "City Slickers." He even performed one-armed push-ups onstage when he went up to pick up his award. Palance died in 2006.
- ALAN ARKIN: A nominee for lead actor for 1966's "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming" and 1968's "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter," Arkin was 72 years and 336 days old when he won the supporting actor Academy Award for his performance as a foul-mouthed grandfather in 2006's "Little Miss Sunshine." Arkin is still a working actor; his latest film, "Thin Ice," opened earlier this month.


text: A fast paced piano, mixes with a harp to force anticipation. The drums are quick and snappy, while the bass drives and pushes the rhythm section forward. A solo harp twinkles and sparkles over the top of the whole thing. This piece is ideal for all production types that require a build up or anticipation, but it is also valid as a motivational, corporate style piece. Perfect for web, TV, Radio, and film.


text:
18K White Gold Solitaire Ring Set with Oval Fancy Blue Zirconia from Swarovski
Contact Seller
Product Description
From Gem Stone King, four generations manufacturing jewelry, comes an exciting new collection Carlo Bianca. Inspired by the opulence and luxuriousness in Gem Stone King's diamond quality craftsmanship, Carlo Bianca is an unequaled combination of modern sophistication and timeless glamour, designed for leading women of all generations. Each piece of jewelry is beautifully crafted in sterling silver or gold and set with Swarovski's Pure Brilliance Cut for Zirconia, the highest simulated diamond in the world. The result: creating a refined elegant look capable of converting any personal attire from daywear to eveningwear. Just like diamonds that possess a "hearts and arrows" design due to perfect precision cutting, Swarovski has also mastered this technique, creating a stone so perfect, it cannot be denied. See it to believe it! Furthermore, to ensure the stone is a true Swarovski's Pure Brilliance Cut for Zirconia, each one is marked with a microscopic engraving; a seal of assurance, yet untraceable to the naked eye. Take advantage of not only the brilliance in masterpiece brought by Gem Stone King, but the superb quality in radiance provided by Swarovski, a culmination of simulated-diamond jewelry quality with endless possibilities. The Collection is taking advantage of the beautiful colors and the combination of the traditional shapes like, rounds, ovals, marquise, cushion, pear shapes, baguettes and emerald cuts. The Carlo Bianca collection; truly a physical symbol of recognition.
- Gem Type: Swarovski Zirconia
- Total Carat Weight: 0.43
- Cut: Oval
- Color: Fancy Blue
- Clarity: Eye Clean
- Gram Weight: 3.70 grams
- Metal Type:Solid 18K White Gold
- Measurements: 6x4 mm
- Estimated Retail Price: $1,551.00
- Cut : Oval
- Fine/Fashion : Fine
- Finish : Polished
- Gem Length (mm) : 6
- Gem Width (mm) : 4
- Gender : Female
- Gold Purity (kt) : 18
- Jewelry Material : White Gold
- Main Stone : Zirconia
- Main Stone Weight (ct) : 0.43
- Metal Weight (g) : 3.70 grams
- Pearl Dyed : false
- Shape : Oval
- Stone Count : NaN
- Stone Creation Method : simulated
- Stone(s) Treated : Not-treated
- Total Stone Weight (ct) : 0.43
- Weight (g) : 3.70 grams
|Gem Stone King
|Gem Stone King
|Base SKU
Frequently Asked Questions
Shipping Options:
We offer a 30 day Full Refund return policy. Your 100% Satisfaction is our highest priority.
Please keep the following in mind:
* We DO NOT charge a restocking fee for returns
* You have 30 days from the day you receive the item to request a return merchandise authorization (RMA) number
* Please do not ship your item back to us prior to obtaining an RMA number
To obtain a RMA number please send us an email at email@example.com


text:
Want to Be More Likeable on Facebook? Stop Being So Negative
Although sharing our thoughts and feelings can be an important part of building friendships, a new study says people with low self-esteem who bombard friends with negative details about their lives on Facebook actually make themselves less likeable.
"We had this idea that Facebook could be a really fantastic place for people to strengthen their relationships," says Amanda Forest, a graduate student at the University of Waterloo, who co-wrote the new study with her advisor, Joanne Wood.
In one study, researchers learned people with low self-esteem were more likely to think Facebook provided an opportunity to connect with others, and they also considered it as a safe place that reduced the risk of awkward social situations.
The team then looked at the volunteers' most recent Facebook status updates, and rated each one for how positive or negative it was. At that point, a coder — an undergraduate Facebook user — rated how much they liked the people who wrote those updates.
Volunteers with low self-esteem were more negative than people with high self-esteem — and the coders liked them less. The coders were strangers, but that's realistic, Forest says, because earlier research found nearly half of our Facebook friends are not close friends, but actually strangers or acquaintances.
What's more, the researchers found, people with low self-esteem get more responses from their real Facebook friends when they post highly positive updates instead of less positive ones. On the other hand, people with high self-esteem get more responses when they post negative items, possibly because those types of updates are rarer for them and thus attract more attention.
The bottom line is that while people with low self-esteem feel safer making personal disclosures on Facebook, doing so isn't winning them any fans — and they may not even know it.
"If you're talking to somebody in person and you say something, you might get some indication that they don't like it, that they're sick of hearing your negativity," Forest says in a press release. But when people have a negative reaction to a Facebook post, they tend to stay quiet. "On Facebook, you don't see most of the reactions," she added.
The study will be published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.


text:
It's getting to that time of year when North American-wide media outlets compile their lists of potential available player for the Feb. 28 trade deadline.
We all know that when Bruins general manager Peter Chiarelli gets back into the trade market, he'll be looking for help on defense. The pickings might be slim because so many teams could still be alive for playoff position and the Bruins won't have much cap space to work with without moving a major salary off their own cap.
Over at ESPN.com, Pierre Lebrun compiled a top 10 list of players that are likely to become available as the trade deadline nears. If you ignore the urge to consider the Bruins reigniting their pursuit of Toronto's Tomas Kaberle, the only other defenseman on Lebrun's list is Carolina's Joni Pitkanen.
Here's what Lebrun writes:
There has been a lot of attention on Kaberle, but here's a top-four blueliner who had 46 points last season. Earning $4 million this season, he's UFA on July 1. He's the type of puck-moving, power-play blueliner that's always in demand. Of course, he'd only be available if the Hurricanes aren't close to a playoff spot come Feb. 28.
I've had it suggested to me by numerous readers and colleagues that the Bruins should attempt to add Pitkanen. I've never been a huge fan and think his decision-making would be a problem in head coach Claude Julien's system. But I could also see where he might be an upgrade. Obviously, any trade for a player of Pitkanen's stature and cap hit would require moving Michael Ryder and picks/prospects to sweeten the pot. And also, the Hurricanes would have to fall out of contention. I think they're a playoff team, and right now they're just four points back of the Bruins for eighth in the Eastern Conference.
Bottom line: Lebrun's list leaves the Bruins with nothing under their tree come late-February.
Over at AOL Fanhouse, Chris Botta obviously has an aversion to even numbers, as he has compiled nine players that could be on the block pretty soon.
Of those nine, three are defensemen: Florida's Bryan McCabe, Edmonton's Jim Vandermeer and New York Islanders obscene-gesturer James Wisniewski. All three are going to be UFA next summer.
Last season while he was still with Anaheim, Wisniewski's name came up in some rumors connected to the Bruins. Now $3.25 million, plus whatever assets you give up, is probably a steep price to pay for a guy that stands at minus-22. However, the Islanders are the type of team that might be able to take back salary because they have to stay at the salary-cap floor. That could make them a Ryder landing spot if Wisniewski is deemed a solid fourth or fifth defenseman who has been victimized by playing for the laughingstock of the league.
Vandermeer is hurt right now, but is a plus-3 for a young Edmonton team that doesn't have much of a defensive reputation. He carries a $2.3 million cap hit. After his return, Vandermeer will be the type of player many contending teams will be interested in. So the Oilers might be able to coax a little bit of a bidding war (albeit nothing astronomical), which would probably leave the Bruins either out of the running or surrendering too much than they're usually willing to part with for a depth defenseman.
All you need to know about McCabe is this: $5.75 million cap hit. It's too bad. For all the knocks against him as a one-dimensional offensive defenseman type, McCabe has rounded into a solid veteran who takes care of his own end and can even throw the body around a little bit. Chiarelli and Florida counterpart Dale Tallon, who are not averse to making big deals together, would have to really put their heads together to get something done involving McCabe. Those types of deals rarely come together in-season anymore because of the cap. And Boston wouldn't want to do too much to alter its roster and risk a chemistry crisis.
Bottom line: Botta's list is a bit more intriguing. Should the Bruins decide one more veteran is necessary on the back end, Vandermeer could land on their radar.


text:
A century after Burbank joined the Rose Parade, the city celebrates the abundance of floats it has produced since "Goddess of Plenty."
Burbank's first float in the 25th Rose Parade in 1914, featured an ornate dragon head and a giant cornucopia filled with Burbank-grown fruits and vegetables, including sweet potatoes, pumpkins and squash.
Some of the city's floats are fused with their own American history. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, Burbank couldn't finish its 1942 float, said Erik Andersen, Burbank Tournament of Roses Association historian.
"The money that was going to go to the flowers were used for a truck and food and coffee to the military personnel that were stationed in Burbank," Andersen said. "If (the city) couldn't be in the parade, that was a great way of allocating the money."
The 2014 float, "Lights … Camera … Action!" will be the city's 82nd entry; it skipped some years.
Burbank's float is one of six self-built entries — constructed and decorated entirely by volunteers — in the 125th Rose Parade. The event will showcase 46 floats under the "Dreams Come True" theme.
"Burbank has such a huge film history," Andersen said. "We wanted to pay homage to that history.
"You talk about dreams coming true. When you watch a movie, you can do anything, from E.T. visiting planet Earth to seeing spectacles."
South Pasadena claims the oldest self-built float. The small town has entered 122 consecutive floats, said Chris Colburn, South Pasadena Tournament of Roses spokesman. For its 123rd float, it will enter "Intergalactic Vacation."
The floats are a city tradition and a "labor of love," said Colburn, 39. His group is a dying breed, he added.
"I started working on floats at 8 years old in 1982," he said. "Back in the '80s, I think there were 10 self-built floats. And we're down to six now. We're the last of the Mohicans, so to say."
Although Glendale no longer submits self-built floats, it also claims a high point in the 2014 Rose Parade. Glendale will submit its 100th entry, "Let's Be Neighbors."
To commemorate the occasion, Glendale Mayor Dave Weaver said the city has budgeted $150,000 for the float, which is $50,000 more than usual.
"So many things drop by the wayside. It's important to keep something that has lasted 100 years," said Weaver, 74. "It's a float and the parade, and it's a very marketable tool seen by billions of households. People pay millions of dollars in advertising to get even 30 seconds during the Super Bowl. To get that for $150,000 is pretty good marketing."
Some floats will be remembered for the mark they leave on people's lives.
Fifty years ago, Burbank paid homage to President John F. Kennedy with "The President Goes to the Prom." The Burbank Tournament of Roses Association intended to depict the city's brief contact with Kennedy when it chose this design for the Jan. 1, 1964 parade.
Five months after the float design was approved, Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. So Burbank's float ended up being a memorial to the first president who really embraced the use of television as a communication tool.
The theme for the 1964 float was inspired by events that began when the Democratic Party booked a banquet hall at the Beverly Hilton Hotel for June 7, 1963, for a campaign fundraising event. The event grew larger than the hall could accommodate, so the hotel eyed the much larger Grand Ballroom, which had already been reserved for two years by Burbank's John Burroughs High School for its senior prom. The class of 1963 had 500 students, so a large room was needed.
Hotel management told the school a couple of weeks before the prom that it would have to hold the event somewhere else.
The seniors complained loud enough that the protests were covered by the local press, and prompting Kennedy to have the party organizers to take the smaller room or change the date of the fundraiser. The party decided to book several smaller rooms in the hotel that the president would visit throughout the evening.
The high school kids were ecstatic: They would have their dream prom. So they sent a telegram to Kennedy, inviting him to stop by. It was a "since you're going to be there, why don't you swing on by" type of invitation. They didn't know that he would take them up on the offer, Andersen said.
In Kennedy's speech at the prom, he joked about how the high schoolers had a better room than he did and how he'd rather be a senior at John Burroughs High School than be the president.
"We want to thank you very much for letting us have the small room upstairs and to tell you that we wish you the best of success," Kennedy said to a roomful of teens. "All that this country is, all that it hopes to be, is right in this room tonight."
To hear a tape of the president's remarks at the prom, go to www.burbankrosefloat.com/history/1964/1964Float.html.


text:
Up From the Ashes – The Republican Party's Chance for a Renewed Lease on Life November 5, 2008Posted by Adam Nowland in Democracy, Politics, President Bush, President Obama, U.S. Foreign Relations, U.S. Government.
Tags: Democrats, GOP, President Bush, President Obama, President-elect Obama, Republicans
As Americans wake on the morning of November 5th, they awake in a country on the verge of a new era. With the landslide victory of President-elect Barack Obama, who enters office with significant majorities in both the House and the Senate, Americans have spoken, and spoken loudly. The Republican administration of lame-duck President George W. Bush has been swept from office as U.S. citizens voiced their concerns that the GOP was no longer in touch with the average American.
However, despite the humiliating defeat, the Republican Party is far from dead. Indeed, in the long run, a crushing defeat at the hands of Obama and his allies may be exactly what the GOP needs to spring back into national power. Although the defeat and future power seem contradictory, one realizes that the idea isn't so far-fetched when we recall how far astray from its "roots" the Republican leadership has gone over the last eight years. Abandoning the old mainstays of fiscal responsibility, small government, and increased rights to private individuals, the GOP in many respects had become the thing it feared most – the Democratic Party. For all intents and purposes, the parties, at least in Congress, had become indistinguishable. By assuming power, the Republicans in Congress and the White House permitted absolute power, especially in the wake of broad support following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, to transform them into big government, drunk on power and unlimited funding. By forsaking their roots, the Republicans set the stage for the major upsets in the last two elections.
But now that they are removed from power, the Republican Party and its leaders can return to what made them popular in the first place. The environment for a victory in two years in the next national election is perfect for conservatives, who, if they play their cards right and get a little help from the Democrats, could provide a stunning comeback. Let's take a look at the opportunities:
– An inexperienced, untested President taking office with enormous expectations. Republicans must exploit any mistakes by Obama in his first months in office. If Obama opens negotiations with Iran, or backpedals in the face of pressure from North Korea, China, Russia, or Venezuela, the GOP has a fantastic opportunity to show that Obama is weak when it comes to foreign policy. Likewise, the domestic decisions that Obama makes in his first two years as president could have significant ramifications for the economy, the health system, and social policy, and he must tread lightly and ignore the obvious mistake of liberalizing too much too quickly, or he and his party will quickly burn through the political currency they gained yesterday.
– A faltering economy. The overwhelming focus of voters, the economy continues to struggle while the government seems helpless to solve the credit crunch, the enormous (and crippling) housing mortgage crisis, and a slipping dollar. The country may be on the verge of significant inflation, yet the government continues to find new ways to pour money into the economy. Obama plans sweeping tax changes and has promised to pour upwards of sixty billion dollars into the nation's infrastructure. Unfortunately, the United States probably can't afford such action, at least not now.
– Increasing domestic divisiveness. Socially, conservatives and liberals in the United States continue to go their separate ways. Obama takes office with a significant portion of the country extremely distrustful of his motives and potential (which is nothing new for any president). However, he will have to be careful not to offend large segments of voters, or, like the 2006 national elections, citizens will treat him as they treated President Bush and his unpopular Iraq War.
– A global security nightmare. War in the Congo. Continued crisis in Dafur. An aggressive Russia unresponsive to global scrutiny. A war going well in Iraq. A war not going well in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden still unaccounted for. Mr. Obama must find ways to protect Americans from a second 9/11. However, he must also judiciously approach foreign crises as well. The United States is uniquely prepared to go into other countries to stop calamities like genocide or famine. Obama must continue the United State's role as a global policeman while still avoiding getting mired in another long war in a country that doesn't fully support our own end goals.
All these issues point clearly to opportunities for the Republican Party to seize on mistakes by the Obama administration and his supporters in Congress. A major mishandling of a crisis by Obama would go a long way to bringing the GOP back into power. However, Republicans must also reinvent their image as a party of the people, rather than a party of the government. If they can project a new understanding of responsibility and empathy, they should be poised, at the very least, to take back some of the lost seats of Congress. I suggest three ways to help the Republicans get back on track.
First, the Republican Party must recreate themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. This is a no-brainer. The Bush administration has become famous for its liberal spending policies, which inevitably led to increased government debt and certainly did not help the country avoid the recession that even now wracks the economy. This spending is not reminiscent of your grandparents' Republican party. With nearly every state struggling economically, schools scrambling to make ends meet, and individuals watching their savings dissolve, it is shocking that Americans have so little faith in Republicans that they turn to a party that is known for its spending excess. The GOP CANNOT miss this golden opportunity to push towards decreased government. People don't want to spend more money on taxes – they want to save and have the government help provide things like education, energy, and infrastructure. Resume the push for small government and fiscal responsibility, and the Republicans will have taken a major step towards success.
Second, the GOP must begin rebuilding bridges with the media. Yes, everyone knows that the media is indeed biased (except, it seems, the media itself), but news outlets continue to hold enormous sway over voters. Indeed, it is a testament that President Bush was able to be elected despite extreme negative treatment by the media. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was incredibly popular with news organizations, and he used those ties to his advantage. While pandering to the media is not an activity the GOP would like to do, it cannot escape the fact that it will not be successful unless it can somehow gain respect, if not love, from media outlets. There is no doubt that Barack Obama was a media darling during the 2008 elections. Republicans must pull a page from the Democrats' book and use the media as a tool to achieve success, rather than battle reporters and cameras at every outlet.
Finally, and most importantly, the GOP must show that it is a party of and for the people. Too many people criticize Republicans for being aloof and "above" the average citizen. Democrats got involved with the people who would vote for them and got their hands dirty campaigning. Republicans recently have failed to engage voters on a personal level, showing that they understand the economic and social woes of the everyday family. Without this personal engagement and a clear understanding of what most people are going through, or knowing what the goals and beliefs of the average citizen are, the Republicans cannot gain the support of voters. Rectifying this problem would be a significant achievement.
While Republicans are (and should be) disappointed by the results of the 2008 election, there is hope on the horizon. The GOP must seize on Democratic mistakes and effectively take the place of the Democratic Party as the political entity most in touch with voters. By taking advantage of knowing WHY they lost this election, the Republican Party can set itself up to avoid another failure in 2010.
- 1. Up From the Ashes - The Republican Party's Chance for a Renewed … - November 5, 2008
[…] Up From the Ashes – The Republican Party's Chance for a Renewed … Abandoning the old mainstays of fiscal responsibility, small government, and increased rights to private individuals, the GOP in many respects had become the thing it feared most – the Democratic Party. For all intents and purposes, … […]
- 2. Up From the Ashes - The Republican Party's Chance for a Renewed … - November 5, 2008
[…] Up From the Ashes – The Republican Party's Chance for a Renewed … However, despite the humiliating defeat, the Republican Party is far from dead. Indeed, in the long run, a crushing defeat at the hands of Obama and his allies may be exactly what the GOP needs to spring back into national power. … […]


text:
A deep and dark dubstep track with big anthemic strings giving the feeling of a spy thriller sound track. Great track to build atmosphere and tension within a film.
Includes main version and a slightly dubbier version without the strings. Preview shows both main version (starting at 0:00) and dubbier version (starting at 3:40), both come individually and without watermarks in the purchased pack.
Undercover Dubstep Spy Main Version: 3:46 Undercover Dubstep Spy Dubbier Version: 3:46


text:
Set Your Tivo: 11.09.09 – 11.13.09Posted by nvr1983 on November 9th, 2009
It is time to rejoice college basketball fans. After seven long months college basketball is back (officially). Since the last game of importance (UNC dismantling Michigan State), we've put up with the drama of Billy Gillispie getting fired and John Calipari getting hired (technically before the title game) along with John Wall, Lance Stephenson, and Renardo Sidney taking a ridiculously long time to decide where they would go to college (maybe just for one year) then waited to see if they would be eligible to play, which will probably be an ongoing drama throughout the season, and put up with a lot of really bad behavior by players and coaches. Now it is time for the games to begin. To be honest, the opening week is a little light on great games, but the pace should pick up next week as the early season tournaments get underway and we know that college basketball fans are craving a fix of real games so this week should still be exciting.
Monday (11.09.09)
FIU at #4 UNC at 7 PM on ESPNU: Ok, I'll admit it. This game is more interesting for the sideshow that is Isiah Thomas more than it will be compelling basketball unless Isiah decides to lace them up one more time. As for the actual basketball, I'll be "watching" (quotation marks since this game is on ESPNU which nobody has) UNC to see how they have reloaded with the departure of Tyler Hansbrough (last seen filming awful commercials), Ty Lawson (last seen talking about how he should have left Chapel Hill after his freshman year), and Wayne Ellington (last seen on the bench in Minnesota). My guess is that we will be seeing a lot out of the frontcourt with John Henson, Tyler Zeller, Deon Thompson, and Ed Davis. Watch for the emergence of Ed Davis as Roy Williams will no longer have the option of hiding this budding superstar in what some believed was an attempt to keep his draft stock down and keep him in Chapel Hill for at least one more year (see Roy blowing off my question about Ed at the press conference after the Miami-UNC game last year–it's the last question on the video as he is folding up his papers both while I am asking the question and as he is dodging the question).
Albany at #25 Syracuse at 9 PM on ESPNU: A week ago I wouldn't have even thought this would be a contest, but that was before the world learned about Le Moyne. While Albany is a nice middle-of-the-pack America East team they shouldn't be much of challenge for the Orange, but that depends on how shell-shocked they are after the Le Moyne debacle. Watch for Jim Boeheim to try to pound the Great Danes on the inside. Virgina transfer Will Harris will have his hands full on the inside with Wesley Johnson, Rick Jackson, and Arinze Onuaku.
Murray State at #12 California at 11 PM on ESPN U: This might be the most interesting game of the night even if it might be the least interesting to the casual fan, but we will be courtside covering the game for this year's opening RTC Live (and we'll be back two nights later when Detroit comes to Berkeley). I'm not expecting the Racers to pull off the upset although I think this game could be closer than a lot of people expect as Billy Kennedy brings a team that has the potential to win the Ohio Valley Conference into Berkeley. Kennedy will rely on his talented trio of Danero Thomas, Ivan Aska, and Isacc Miles against Mike Montgomery's talented group of perimeter players led by Jerome Randle, Patrick Christopher, and Theo Robertson. Montgomery's trio (with some help from Duke transfer Jamal Boykin) should be enough to hold off the Racers, but if they come in believing the considerable hype we might just have our first upset of the regular season.
Friday (11.13.09)
Hofstra at #1 Kansas on ESPN Full Court and ESPN360.com: I'm not really expecting this to be a competitive game, but it is worth watching to see the consensus preseason #1 open up. Expect to see Sherron Collins and Cole Aldrich play about 20-25 minutes in what should be a glorified exhibition. Hofstra has a pretty big name for a mid-major, but coach Tom Pecora will have the unenviable task of having to replace Antoine Agudio, the school's all-time leading scorer, and he also lacks an interior presence to battle Aldrich on the inside–expect to see Aldrich dominate Greg Washington and Miklos Szabo on the inside. One match-up that might turn out to be interesting is at point guard with Collins going against Charles Jenkins (the only returning player in D1 to average more than 19 PPG, 4 RPG, and 4 APG last season). Outside of that check out the game to see Xavier Henry, who will have to work for his minutes this season on a deep and talented Jayhawk team.
Morehead State at #5 Kentucky on ESPNU: We would like to talk about how we think that one of the contenders for the Ohio Valley Conference title could take down Kentucky's vaunted group of freshmen in their opening game, but it's more likely that this could be a preview of a NCAA tournament game — a 1st round NCAA tournament game. Donnie Tyndall's team will have its hands full going into Rupp Arena with 23,500 rabid Kentucky fans ready to witness the rebirth of their program. One match-up that might be interesting will be Patrick Patterson (yes, Kentucky does have players outside of its freshmen) against Kenneth Faried, the odds-on favorite to win OVC POY. For the NBA scouts who might be reading this, you'll have to wait to see John Wall who is sitting out as part of his suspension, but there will still be NBA talent on the court with Patterson and DeMarcus Cousins on the inside for the Wildcats.


text:
Ashley Tisdale & Lindsay Lohan: 'Scary Movie 5' Trailer - Watch Now!
Check out Ashley Tisdale in the first offical trailer for Scary Movie 5!
The 27-year-old actress stars in the flick as Jody, and in the trailer we see her having some very Paranormal Activity-like encounters.
PHOTOS: Check out the latest pics of Ashley Tisdale
The flick also features hilarious cameos by Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen, who get cozy together in bed before being interrupted by what appears to be a ghost.
Scary Movie 5 is set to hit theaters on April 19, 2013 – check out the trailer below!