#tax services philadelphia | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 8 days

Text

On this day in 1787, thirty-nine brave men signed the proposed U.S. Constitution, recognizing all who are born in the United States or by naturalization, have become citizens

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 17, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 18, 2024

In 1761, 55-year-old Benjamin Franklin attended the coronation of King George III and later wrote that he expected the young monarch’s reign would “be happy and truly glorious.” Fifteen years later, in 1776, he helped to draft and then signed the Declaration of Independence. An 81-year-old man in 1787, he urged his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to rally behind the new plan of government they had written.

“I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them,” he said, “For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

The framers of the new constitution hoped it would fix the problems of the first attempt to create a new nation. During the Revolutionary War, the Second Continental Congress had hammered out a plan for a confederation of states, but with fears of government tyranny still uppermost in lawmakers’ minds, they centered power in the states rather than in a national government.

The result—the Articles of Confederation—was a “firm league of friendship” among the 13 new states, overseen by a congress of men chosen by the state legislatures and in which each state had one vote. The new pact gave the federal government few duties and even fewer ways to meet them. Indicating their inclinations, in the first substantive paragraph the authors of the agreement said: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Within a decade, the states were refusing to contribute money to the new government and were starting to contemplate their own trade agreements with other countries. An economic recession in 1786 threatened farmers in western Massachusetts with the loss of their farms when the state government in the eastern part of the state refused relief; in turn, when farmers led by Revolutionary War captain Daniel Shays marched on Boston, propertied men were so terrified their own property would be seized that they raised their own army for protection.

The new system clearly could not protect property of either the poor or the rich and thus faced the threat of landless mobs. The nation seemed on the verge of tearing itself apart, and the new Americans were all too aware that both England and Spain were standing by, waiting to make the most of the opportunities such chaos would create.

And so, in 1786, leaders called for a reworking of the new government centered not on the states, but on the people of the nation represented by a national government. The document began, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union….”

The Constitution established a representative democracy, a republic, in which three branches of government would balance each other to prevent the rise of a tyrant. Congress would write all “necessary and proper” laws, levy taxes, borrow money, pay the nation’s debts, establish a postal service, establish courts, declare war, support an army and navy, organize and call forth “the militia to execute the Laws of the Union” and “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

The president would execute the laws, but if Congress overstepped, the president could veto proposed legislation. In turn, Congress could override a presidential veto. Congress could declare war, but the president was the commander in chief of the army and had the power to make treaties with foreign powers. It was all quite an elegant system of paths and tripwires, really.

A judicial branch would settle disputes between inhabitants of the different states and guarantee every defendant a right to a jury trial.

In this system, the new national government was uppermost. The Constitution provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” and promised that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

Finally, it declared: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such,” Franklin said after a weary four months spent hashing it out, “because I think a general Government necessary for us,” and, he said, it “astonishes me…to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our…States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.”

“On the whole,” he said to his colleagues, “I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility—and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

On September 17, 1787, they did.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#U.S.Constitution #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #history #American History #Benjamin Franklin

25 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 9 months

Text

“All this happening at once is really startling,” said Joseph Schwieterman, a DePaul University professor who researches intercity bus travel and directs the university’s Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development. “You’re taking mobility away from disproportionately low-income and mobility-challenged citizens who don’t have other options.”

Roughly three-quarters of intercity bus riders have annual incomes of less than $40,000. More than a quarter would not make their trip if bus service was not available, according to surveys by Midwestern governments reviewed by DePaul University.

Intercity bus riders are also disproportionately minorities, people with disabilities, and unemployed travelers.

A spokesperson for Greyhound, which is now owned by German company FlixMobility, said it strives to offer customers the most options for connections, but has “encountered challenges in some instances.” The spokesperson also said they “actively engage with local stakeholders to emphasize the importance of supporting affordable and equitable intercity bus travel.”

The terminal closures have been accelerating as Greyhound, the largest carrier, sells its valuable terminals to investors, including investment firm Alden Global Capital.

Last year, Alden subsidiary Twenty Lake Holdings purchased 33 Greyhound stations for $140 million. Alden is best known for buying up local newspapers like The Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News and The Baltimore Sun, cutting staff, and selling some of the iconic downtown buildings.

Alden has started to sell the Greyhound depots to real estate developers, speeding up the timetable for closures.

“I don’t know the specific details of each building, but it is clear what is happening here: an important piece of transit infrastructure is being sacrificed in the name of higher profits,” said Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a professor of real estate at Columbia Business School.

“The public sector has turned a cold shoulder to buses,” DePaul’s Schwieterman said. “We subsidize public transit abundantly, but we don’t see this as an extension of our transit system. Few governments view it as their mandate.”

Bus terminals are costly for companies to operate, maintain and pay property taxes on. Many have deteriorated over the years, becoming blighted properties struggling with homelessness, crime and other issues.

But terminal closures cause a ripple effect of problems.

Travelers can’t use the bathroom, stay out of the harsh weather or get something to eat while they wait. People transferring late at night or early in the morning, sometimes with long layovers, have no place to safely wait or sleep. It’s worse in the cold, rain, snow or extreme heat.

Bus carriers often try to switch to curbside service when a terminal closes, but curbside bus service can clog up city streets with passengers and their luggage, snarl traffic, increase pollution, and frustrate local business owners. In Philadelphia, a Greyhound terminal closure and switch to curbside service after its lease ended turned into a “humanitarian disaster” and “municipal disgrace” with people waiting on street corners.

(continue reading)

#politics #infrastructure #bussing #public transportation #mass transit #mass transportation #capitalism #economic racism #the commons #greyhound #flixmobility #greyhound bus #greyhound bus lines #bus stops

71 notes · View notes

simply-ivanka · 3 months

Text

CALVIN COOLIDGE

30thPresident of the United States

Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

July 05, 1926

Fellow Countrymen:

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the 4th day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience

It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the administration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be underestimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

But if these truths to which the Declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirely by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our Declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Connecticut, as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that--

The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people. The choice of public magistrates belongs to the people by God's own allowance.

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused" in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise. It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent." It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to very man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth * * *."

And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed state by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government - the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ's government * * *."

The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook to balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guarantees of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meetinghouse. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

#repost #america first #americans first #america

12 notes · View notes

partisan-by-default · 2 months

Text

US judge will not block Biden administration ban on worker 'noncompete' agreements

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a bid by a tree-trimming company to block a U.S. Federal Trade Commission rule from taking effect that would ban agreements commonly signed by workers not to join their employers' rivals or launch competing businesses.

U.S. District Judge Kelley Hodge in Philadelphia said in a written decision that the FTC, which enforces federal antitrust laws, has the power to ban practices that it deems anticompetitive, including the use of so-called noncompete agreements that curb competition for labor.

Hodge, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, denied a bid by ATS Tree Services to block the rule pending the outcome of its lawsuit.

About 30 million people, or 20% of U.S. workers, have signed noncompetes, according to the FTC.

A federal judge in Texas earlier this month blocked the FTC from enforcing the rule against a coalition of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business lobby, and tax service firm Ryan, while they pursue legal challenges.

FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said the decision "fully vindicates" that the law allows the agency to ban noncompete clauses, "which harm competition by inhibiting workers' freedom and mobility while stunting economic growth."

5 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 6 months

Text

This day in history

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT (Mar 22) in TORONTO, then SUNDAY (Mar 24) with LAURA POITRAS in NYC, then Anaheim, and beyond!

#15yrsago Argentine philosophy prof faces prison time for posting unofficial translations of out of print Derrida texts https://web.archive.org/web/20120121084605/http://www.karisma.org.co/carobotero/index.php/2009/03/13/el-turno-de-los-profesores-prision-por-subir-obras-protegidas-a-internet/

#15yrsago US Attorney mistakes 419 letter for a submission from a Madoff victim https://www.businessinsider.com/congo-email-scammers-support-harsh-sentence-for-madoff-2009-3

#15yrsago One quarter of all British govt databases are illegalhttps://web.archive.org/web/20101016205748/http://dooooooom.blogspot.com/2009/03/database-state.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101016205748/http://dooooooom.blogspot.com/2009/03/database-state.html

#5yrsago Unnamed stalkerware company has left gigabytes of sensitive personal info unprotected on the web and can’t be reached to fix it https://www.vice.com/en/article/j573k3/spyware-data-leak-pictures-audio-recordings

#5yrsago Philadelphia city council candidate says his secret AI has discovered disqualifying fraud in the nominations of 30 out of 33 candidates https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/council-at-large-petition-challenges-devon-cade-allan-domb-nick-miccarelli-20190322.html

#5yrsago After fatal crash, Boeing reverses sales policy that locked out some safety features unless airlines paid for an upgrade https://apnews.com/article/140576a8e9d4449eae646c8c479fdc3a

#5yrsago Wireless vulns in Medtronic’s implanted defibrillators allow remote shocks, shutdown, denial-of-service battery attacks and data theft https://www.startribune.com/750-000-medtronic-defibrillators-vulnerable-to-hacking/507470932/

#5yrsago Grandson of legendary John Deere engineer defends right-to-repair and condemns Big Ag for “taxing customers” https://securityledger.com/2019/03/opinion-my-grandfathers-john-deere-would-support-our-right-to-repair/

#1yrago Kickstarting the Red Team Blues audiobook, which Amazon won't sell https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/22/anti-finance-finance-thriller/#marty-hench

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

#pluralistic

8 notes · View notes

darkmaga-retard · 1 month

Text

By Howard J. Warner

I hope anyone who is still undecided will put aside their concern over Donald Trump’s personality, insults, and braggadocio and recognize how radical Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are.

We are facing a crisis for our future. Our economy is seriously damaged. Our public safety is threatened by a biased criminal justice system, widespread open national borders, drug abuse, and insufficient police staffing. Both Harris and Walz have supported programs that have given us this situation and promise to continue these efforts.

At the rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday, these two promised that they “are not going back” when referring to the freedoms we enjoy. They mean they aim to protect the progressive programs they have pushed during the past four years to buy Democrat votes with taxpayers’ funds. They are talking about unfettered abortion, social programs that enable criminals to get out of prison and get “rap-around” services to fix their criminal behavior, more federal spending to help illegal aliens, more spending to ensure that teachers’ unions benefit, supporting corrupt union leaders (such as the UAW) while these jobs disappear due to work rules and costs, more regulations destroying jobs and small businesses, higher taxes to transfer wealth from middle-class individuals to government, enriching their wealthy donors, and continuing the chaos within our cities which keep minority communities dependent.

3 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 2 years

Photo

Speech given by college student Raymond Anthony Mungo at the Boston Common for an anti-Vietnam draft rally, 10/16/1967:

“I'm here today, and this is a very historic day, to go with you . . .I say again, I have nothing more to do with the Selective Service System.”

File Unit: Boston Common, 1928 - 1976

Series: Precedent Case Files, 1928 - 1976

Record Group 118: Records of U.S. Attorneys, 1821 - 1994

Transcription:

RAY MUNGO: I am going to talk very briefly. I'm not exactly sure why I'm here to speak to you because I can't speak as elegantly as either of the two gentlemen who preceded me, and I'm not black, and I'm embarrassed by the fact that nobody black is up here; and I'm not working class, even though my parents are working class, because I obviously went to college, you know. But I have learned a few things since I started going to college.

When I started going to college, the Civil Rights movement was the big thing and I thought that was great because there were these people down South pounding people and beating people and I assumed that was very un-American. The American character was to be peaceful, to be non-violent, to be just and I assumed that south was the festering sore in American society. That is why I started going to college.

In 1964, three men died in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Their trials were just coming up this week in Mississippi. Their murderers will no doubt be acquitted. In 1965, I was aware of the war in Vietnam. [following underlined in red ink:] I burned my draft card on the 20th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. In 1967, I'm here today, and this is a very historic day, to go with you to the Arlington Street Church to say that I have nothing more to do against, and I say again, I have nothing more to do with the Selective Service System. [end underlining] Now I think this country is getting very close to being a fascist state and I'm afraid, I'm deeply afraid, and I'm afraid of the draft too and you know you are too because it affects all of our lives. I am eligible for the draft and so are you, even though I am in college. It affects people's career positions. It affects the way you look at things. I do not believe, for example, that it's a coincidence that the United States Army, that the same United States Army that is destroying people in Vietnam, can be destroying people in Detroit. I think that it's connected. I think people who go to fight and kill people find it easier to come back here and kill people, and I think killing

[page 2]

29.

BS 25-25171

people is wrong, categorically in any situation, because people are all that we have. People are it, man. You know!

For the fascism that we have in the United States of America is not like the German fascism. It is not like World War II or the Atomic. It is the fascism of the $100-a-plate diners in San Antonio, Texas, who can sit and mildly, smugly, applaud the President on his (word inaudible) when he makes statements that indicate that he's mad, that he is out of touch with reality, and it is the fascism of - yes, it is the fascism of BU student and Harvard University student and Brandeis University students who will not stand up and say anything about the war. It is the fascism of people who continue to pay the taxes, and people who continue to register for the draft because they do not want to stir up any trouble.

I was in (place inaudible) with NICK EGGLESTON (Phonetic). I met a girl that was 23 years old. She had 200 shrapnel wounds in her body because she was teaching in elementary school when it was bombed again and again. I saw pictures of women whose children were born with metal pieces of lead in their faces that went through the woman's womb before birth. I saw people that had their skin seared off by this war in Vietnam, and I've seen black guys in the United States that had their heads bashed in, and I think we’re all going to end up in the can sooner or later if we take a moral stand on this issue, so I'm willing to do it now.

I might be crazy. Why am I subjecting myself to the possibility of jail? Why do I not sit and accept the arguments that may political activists have offered me, that it is more effective to stay out of jail and play along with the system? Because you can't revolutionize the system and you can't change a country that is rotten to the core unless you make a complete break. I cannot object to American materialism if I depend on American affluence and if I'm afraid of jail. I am not afraid of jail. I'm afraid of killing people and being killed and I am afraid that this whole planet is going up in smoke if we don't do something about it immediately. Jail is not to be feared. Jail is an honorable alternative to this war in Vietnam.

[page 3]

30.

BS 25-25171

I feel - Eugene Bent (Phonetic) said in 1918, "I am accused of being against the war. I admit it. I am happy to be against the war. I will be against all wars". And then HENRY DAVID THOREAU said, considerably before that when he was in jail, somebody came up to him and said, "Why are you in there". He turns around and says, "Why are you out there, baby?"

Because a society - in a society which is (word inaudible) unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. EDNA ST. VINCENT MILLAY said in the closing lines of a poem "Am I a spy in the land of the living that I should deliver men to death. Though the password and plans of our city are safe with me, never through me shall you be overcome." [following underlined in red:] If resisting the Government in the United States of America, which is killing people abroad and killing people at home, black people and yellow people and poor people, if that is treason, I want to be a traitor. I want to be nothing but a traitor. It's the only honorable thing to be, and I want as many of you as are ready to take this step today to come with me and a lot of other people down to the Arlington Street Church to tell the United States Government together, today, that you are men, and not tools, that you have rights and you have dignity and you belong to the human race. That's all I'm asking you to do.

If you believe in killing people, it is crazy to register with the - if you don't believe in killing people, it's crazy to pay your taxes. It's crazy! Don't give them a nickel! If you don't believe in killing people, it's crazy to register for the draft. You've got to make a break now. Please come with us today. [end underlining]

#archivesgov #October 15 #1967 #1960s #Vietnam War #the draft #conscription #Raymond Anthony Mungo #cw: violence

75 notes · View notes

nicklloydnow · 3 months

Text

Thomas Paine by Laurent Dabos (1791)

“The Sudden Emergence of Tom Paine

At the beginning of 1776, New England was ready for independence. So were such leading radicals as Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia, Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, and army leaders such as George Washington and Charles Lee. But the bulk of the colonies and the Continental Congress were not. One of the main stumbling blocks to a commitment to independence was personal loyalty to the British crown. There has always been a political taboo of almost mystical force against attacking the head of state, and always the convenient though emasculating custom of attributing his sins to his evil or incompetent advisers. Such long-standing habits impeded a rational analysis of the deeds of King George III. Furthermore, the old and obsolete Whig ideal of virtual independence under a figurehead king of both Britain and America could only be shattered if the king were to be attacked personally.

To rupture this taboo, to smash the icon, and so to liberate America from its thrall required a special type of man, a man fearless, courageous, and radical, an intellectual with a gift for dramatic and exciting rhetoric and unfettered by the many ties that bind a man to the existing system. At this strategic hour America found just such a man: Thomas Paine.

Unlike most of the other eminent leaders of his day, there was nothing in the least aristocratic in the background of Tom Paine. The son of a poor English corset maker, he was forced to educate himself for lack of schooling. After serving a checkered career as corset maker, sailor, and petty bureaucrat, he finally rose to the status of a minor English tax collector. He was soon characteristically in trouble with the authorities. Chosen by his fellow excise collectors in 1772 to petition Parliament for higher wages, he was curtly dismissed from the service by the authorities. Unemployed, bankrupt, the unhappy Paine began his life again at the age of thirty-seven by emigrating to America, armed only with a letter of introduction he had managed to obtain from Benjamin Franklin in London.

Landing in Philadelphia toward the end of 1774, he got a job with a Philadelphia printer and soon rose to the editorship of the printer's insignificant Pennsylvania Magazine. He quickly proved himself an outstanding writer and publicist and quickly made his reputation as a libertarian by publishing a blistering attack on the institution of slavery. In "African Slavery in America," written shortly after his arrival and published in early March 1775, Paine pointed out that the African natives were often peaceful and industrious farmers brought into slavery either by European man-theft or by outsiders inducing the African chieftains to war on each other and to sell their prisoners into slavery. He also riddled the common excuse that purchase and ownership of existing slaves was somehow moral, in contrast to the wickedness of the original enslavement: "Such men may as well join with a known band of robbers, buy their ill-got goods, and help on the trade; ignorance is no more pleadable in one case than the other . . . and as the true owner has the right to reclaim his goods that were stolen, and sold; so the slave, who is proper owner of his freedom, has a right to reclaim it, however often sold." The slaves, being human, have not lost their natural right to their freedom, and therefore, concluded Paine, "the governments . . . should in justice set them free, and punish those who hold them in slavery."

Shortly after this article was published, the first abolitionist society—The Society for the Promotion of the Abolition of Slavery—was established at Philadelphia. Largely Quaker, it included the deist Paine as one of its members.

Lexington and Concord moved Paine to turn his talents to the radical revolutionary cause. In July he urged upon the Quakers the justice of taking up arms in defense of liberty so long as disarmament is not universal. He denounced the British government as highwaymen setting forth to plunder American property; therefore, in self defense, "arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe." For the British, "nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation." And in October he combined his antislavery and proindependence views to castigate Great Britain for trafficking in human flesh, and he looked forward to an independence that would end the slave trade and, ultimately, all of slavery.

All this culminated in Paine's tremendous blow for American independence. His fiery and brilliant pamphlet Common Sense, off the press in early January 1776, spread like wildfire throughout the colonies. A phenomenal 120,000 copies were sold in the space of three months. Passages were reprinted in newspapers all over America. All this meant that nearly every literate home was familiar with the pamphlet. Tom Paine had, at a single blow, become the voice of the American Revolution and the greatest single force in propelling it to completion and independence. Charles Lee wrote jubilantly and prophetically to Washington that "I never saw such a masterly, irresistible performance. It will . . . in concurrence with the transcendent folly and wickedness of the ministry, give the coup de grace to Great Britain." And Washington himself endorsed "the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning" of Common Sense.

Common Sense called squarely and openly for American independence, and pointed to the choice for Americans as essentially between independence and slavery. But what was more, Paine boldly smashed the icon, directing his most devastating fire at King George himself. For the first time, the king, "the Royal Brute of Great Britain," was pinpointed as the major enemy—the king himself, not just his wicked advisers (the king's advisers were attacked as being in thrall to him). Paine had quashed the taboo, and Americans flocked to imbibe his liberating message.

Not stopping at indicting George III, Paine pressed on to a comprehensive attack on the very principle of monarchy. The ancient Jews had prospered without kings and had suffered under them, he wrote, following the great English tradition of Milton and Sidney; and Holland flourished as a republic. But more important, the division between kings and subjects is unnatural, and bears no relation to the natural distinction between rich and poor on the market. How, indeed, had the natural equality of men before the law become transposed into subjection to a monarch? "We should find the first of them [kings] nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang; whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtilty obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless . . . . “ And now the kings were but "crowned ruffians."

In this way, Paine not only laid bare the roots of monarchy, but provided a brilliant insight into the nature and origins of the State itself. He had made a crucial advance in libertarian theory upon the social-contract doctrine of the origin of the State. While he followed Locke in holding that the State should be confined to the protection of man's natural rights, he saw clearly that actual states had not originated in this way or for this purpose. Instead, they had been born in naked conquest and plunder.

Another vital contribution of Common Sense to libertarian thought was Paine's sharp quasi-anarchistic distinction between "society" and "government." Indeed, Paine opened his pamphlet with these words:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave litte or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and governed by our wickedness. . . . The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state, is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer . . . the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise.

In addition to limning brilliantly the nature and origins of monarchy and the State, calling boldly for independence, and attacking George III, Paine set forth the proper foreign policy for an independent America. Here he argued that the connection with Great Britain entailed upon Americans burdens rather than rewards. The Americans should not be tempted by the prospect of Anglo-American domination of the world; on the contrary, America would vastly benefit from throwing open its trade and ports freely to all nations. Further, the alliance with Britain "tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels, and set us at variance with nations . . . against whom we have neither anger nor complaint." As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she can never do while "she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics." Thus, Paine adumbrated for America what was later to be called a foreign policy of "isolationism," but which might also be called neutrality or neutralism. Whatever it is called, it is essentially the libertarian policy of free trade and peaceful coexistence with all nations; it is an America that acts as a moral beacon for mankind rather than as judge or policeman.

In addition to all these achievements, Paine managed to outline in this brief pamphlet the internal political program of the libertarian wing of the American Revolution: the new democratic system naturally created by the Revolution. This consisted of rule by democratically elected legislatures established by proportionate representation and responsible to checks upon them by the people. The aim of such government was simply to protect every man's natural rights of liberty and property: "Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion. . . ." He saw that the superficially plausible lucubrations of such Tory writers as Montesquieu and Blackstone, with their talk of mixed constitutions and checks and balances, masked the repression and hobbling of the democratic element by unchecked aristocracy and oligarchy. Human reason, he implied, must be brought to bear on the myths and accretions of government itself. The much-vaunted British constitution was a tangle of complexities, and hence vague and devoid of a focus of responsibility. In effect, he charged, the so-called checks and balances have led to the aggrandizement of monarchical tyranny over the other branches of government. Indeed, at any given time, for government to act at all, one of the branches must predominate and outweigh the checks and balances. This argument is reminiscent of Edmund Burke's blast against the idea of mixed and balanced government in his anarchistic first work, The Vindication of Natural Society.

Paine concluded the bulk of his magnificent pamphlet with these stirring lines: "O! Ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. . . . O! Receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind." Sounding the clarion call for the democratic-libertarian cause as the party of hope, the party of progress, in short, the party of a secular, rational messianism, he eloquently hailed the impending future: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. . . . The birthday of a new world is at hand. . . .”

The explosive success of Common Sense emboldened the radicals to follow with pamphlets and articles extolling the goal of independence, excoriating King George as "a full-blooded Nero," and anticipating the great benefits of free trade with all the world that would flow from an independent status.

That the Tories, and quasi Tories, and conservatives who opposed independence should abominate Common Sense was, of course, to be expected, reviling it as that "artful, insidious and pernicious" work of sedition and "phrenzy." Several Tories hastened to publish pamphlets of rebuttal, warning of the "ruin, horror, and desolation" that would stem from abandoning the happy and peaceful status of a colony to pursue the romantic chimera of independence. Independence was roundly denounced as absurdly impractical and "Utopian," a project of "ambitious innovators" who "are attempting to hurry... into a scene of anarchy; their scheme of independence is visionary. . . ." Conservative landed oligarchs such as Landon Carter and Henry Laurens considered the Paine pamphlet as "indecent," "rascally," and "dangerous." But the Tories and conservatives soon found that their attacks on independence were in vain, that "there is a fascination belonging to the word Liberty that beguiles the minds of the vulgar. . . ."“ - Murray Rothbard, ‘Conceived in Liberty, Volume IV: The Revolutionary War, 1775-1784’ (1975) [p. 135 - 140]

4 notes · View notes

tax-experts · 15 days

Text

Small Business Accountant

A Small Business Accountant provides essential financial guidance, helping you manage taxes, payroll, and overall financial health.

#accounting services philadelphia #professional bookkeeping services #tax services philadelphia #accountant philadelphia

0 notes

ivygorgon · 6 months

Text

An open letter to the U.S. House of Representatives

Cosponsor H.R.4052, the National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) Act.

587 so far! Help us get to 1,000 signers!

I am writing to urge you to cosponsor H.R.4052, the National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) Act.

The National Infrastructure Bank would provide $5 trillion in low-cost loans for a broad range of public infrastructure projects – including massive water systems – without the need for increasing taxes or any deficit budget spending. This has been done previously in US history—this bill is modeled on the successful Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) started by President Herbert Hoover and used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build Hoover Dam and bring water and electricity to the Southwest.

Infrastructure investment is crucial in the US. We have an immense backlog of infrastructure needs including: affordable housing, total broadband coverage, bridge and road repair or replacement, lead service line replacement, high-speed rail, mass transit, etc. The NIB would finance all these projects—it picks up where the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act left off.

There is wide-ranging support for this. Twenty-seven state legislatures have introduced resolutions of support, and eight passed at least one chamber. Dozens of city and county councils have endorsed including: Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Cleveland, and many more.

Please add your name to cosponsor H.R.4052. And, many thanks again for all your work on behalf of the citizens of our state and the Nation.

▶ Created on March 18 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PIUROM to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

2 notes · View notes

wandixx · 9 months

Note

1765

Thank you so much for asking!

It was an interesting time. Not necessarily this year in particular but a few following decades for sure. Not a good time but interesting. Like in this Chinese curse.

However, 1765 was not just your ordinary year in this dying country either. Just a year before the Polish and Lithuanian aristocracy (and Ukrainian I guess, even though the country at the time was called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the territory of now Ukraine was included and aristocrats living there also had the right to vote) elected the new king (yeah, since 1573 this country had elective kings, it was a bit of a mess tbh). His name was Stanisław August Poniatowski and for once he was not a foreigner (it's like 5 foreign/6 local or 7/4 ratio depending on how to count Władysław IV Waza (Vasaätten in Swedish) and his brother Jan Kazimierz who were from foreign dynasty but from what I know were actually raised in Warsaw. Add one to local if we count Anna Jagielonka but she wasn't actually ruling I think)(Jeez, I get sidetracked a lot, am I not?). Anyway, long live the king! At least this one tried to do something about all of the shit that was going on! He failed miserably, yeah, but at least he tried. It's much more than can be said about at least a few of his predecessors.

Back to the 1765 because I'm spoiling, back then it was believed there were some chances of healing. New King just opened a new school in Warsaw but it was not your ordinary Sunday school. Szkoła Rycerska (Knightly School I guess) was a special school for aristocratic youth in the spirit of Enlightenment and raised a bunch of much-needed wise patriots instead of drunk short-sighted idiots who were governing back then. Kinda late for the party with Enlightenment, I know but anyway, it was really needed back then. Unfortunately, they were still deep in this whole "aristocracy is a pupil of an eye of the country" mindset (though this aristocracy was a bit different than what it means in the West, we have separate word for it but aristoracy is best translation I could get, because you could be dirt poor and aristocrat, just born into the right family and supposedly they were all equal. supposedly. They made up about 10% of the population though. There were three or four "classes" of them, based on the amount of money they had, I can talk about it more if someone is interested), so only blue-blooded deserved to go there. But, you know it was a step in the right direction and between the fact that the king had very little influence on anything, lots of conservatives in parliament, fucking liberum veto (this shit deserves its own, separate rant, the stupidest idea in the history of Polish law and I have a vague memory of chimney tax being a thing), and the way foreign powers were messing up, it probably was almost as good as he could get. As the name suggests, its main focus was the military and civil servant type of service. Each year supposedly 200 boys from poorer (still aristocratic though) families got stipends from the state budget to attend it. During almost 30 years of working, it was finished by 950 people. IDK what happened with these 200 stipends/year. Probably didn't work because this country was quite literally dying, burning, okay, maybe I'm overexaggerating but t'was bad.

Anyway, like any school, Szkoła Rycerska had its share of famous graduates. The most famous one definitely is Tadeusz Kościuszko. Idk if Americans tried to translate his name in any way, so here you go, certified Polish spelling (he himself translated his first name as Thaddeus). Anyway, yeah, he is The Guy who fortified Philadelphia and a bunch of other places like Saratoga, West Point, etc. during the American Revolution (I'm not all that knowledgeable when it comes to his success in this war tbh). He also used money he got from Congress as a payment/thank-you gift to free as many black slaves as he could, while having enough to give each of them a decent start in free life (education and stuff like that). His last will too was like that but it was never executed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unfortunately, he wasn't as successful in Poland.

Btw, the highest mountain in Australia is named after him. No, to my knowledge he had never been in Australia.

Other graduates of Szkoła Rycerska also did some amazing things but their more of the local heroes, so tell me if you're interested in me telling you more about them.

Yo, I just made quite a long post about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth near the end of the 18th century and hadn't outright mentioned that it disappeared as a country in 1795. Not in a "got separated into two countries like Czechoslovakia in 1990's" but in a "not a sign on a map it ever existed"

That's an achievement.

I can and will elaborate on anything that spiked your interest, I hope it's coherent enough to be readable

I was well into answering this when my god damn ancient laptop decided to freeze and delete it all, I swear just getting angry with this thing is shortening my life more than stress of finishing high school ever could

#history #polish history #18th century #idk how to tag it #thaddeus kościuszko #Polish-Lithuanian Commonwelth #btw in literal transtlation from Polish it would be “Republic of Both Nations”#it's a cool name I think #have a nice day dear stranger who got to this part

1 note · View note

nicholas-ratush · 2 years

Text

Not me in 10 years

You wouldn’t think of Philly as a white-collar town. If you haven’t seen that side in a while, get invisible, won’t you? Check it out more for yourself.

Some people in Philly can’t wait to tell you about this city’s blue-collar drive for labor. Won’t you believe some of us still didn’t learn not to drive down 76 at 2 pm or walk down K&A at night? Someone else was telling me they didn't think it was a good idea to drink tap water. I don’t think it’s terrible, and will always tell people what to do. Yet, may I recommend avoiding the potholes around Philly?

If you get stuck in one when the road freezes in the winter, you should only worry you didn’t keep a bag of sand, in your car’s trunk. Some people would say a bump in the road can be fun. Others would say Watch out! No mechanic will ever complain about them yet, won’t you know how much damage they can do to our suspensions and body kits? Some people are amazing and do it themselves. Others, like myself, have two left hands.

I don’t think you care that this big oaf was born and raised in the Delaware Valley, on this tiny chunk of land, just outside Newtown Square in Philadelphia's South-western suburbs. My friends used to say about Philadelphia; it’s rare for a city to offer such diverse opportunities to see the love for family, neighbors, and friends and enjoy each other’s company very seldom. I don’t think we feel it so intensely or often that we can never seem to forget nothing, leaving it somewhere between Jefferson’s Sanitation center and the waterworks off Kelly Drive.

I don’t think my parent's 10-year separation still affects me. As you can imagine, I’m too busy with my social events calendar to take on and solve my parents' problems in a systemic, efficient manner. I don’t think it’s been too emotionally taxing for everyone involved, and I don’t think it will end any time soon since we, the siblings, know we cannot do anything about it.

I don’t think I can tell you enough about how blessed I am. My parents bought me a house last year. I don’t think it was expensive, and I don’t compare, yet I’m so grateful for their actions, contributions, and the labor they provide for our family.

Switching gears to how blessed we are, I think the local municipalities provide many opportunities to showcase our loyalty to our passions, get moving in the community, and witness the beautiful arts, clean parks, planned civil projects, and dynamic evolution to civil sustainability and general well-being.

I don’t think we can ever be as Grand as New York. I don’t wish I could go back. Someone think this guy might be spending too much time with Valley Girls, and I don’t care..

I don’t think I’ve been too harsh on myself. Some people won’t ever find a way to improve their memory and intuition. Won’t I? I don’t think I’ve managed amazingly well on my own.

I don’t think I’m afraid of commitment, lack self-awareness, nor can rush too quickly my neighbor’s problems. I don’t think I have a lot of food in the fridge, but don’t come down, and you won’t get fed. In this city, people don’t say hello. They don’t say goodbye. They won’t ask you a question, unless they need your help, money, time, or services.

Please do me a kindness, don’t ask me any questions. I don’t have answers for you. I have my reasons. I know you’d love my non-answers. I don’t think you believe me, so won’t you ask me how I plan to mitigate that? Don’t you want to tell me to shut the fuck up already?

Growing up in what feels like a millennium ago, in a city that usually sleeps, I don’t think I realized how grateful everyone has been to please me. Neighbors, family, friends, and the few pets we allowed in the house…it was the greatest blessing. I don’t think it was the privilege of growing up in a relatively small, average family, never feeling unique: one mom, one dad, a brother, two sisters, a dog, and my grandparents. I don’t think I could feel more blessed than I do right now.

Very few people here would take a stereotype so far as to say that “the families (here in the Northeast) eat their young, " metaphorically speaking. Doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t be awed. The Delaware valley’s exceptional diversity spreads across many economic and cultural lines. Remember those diverse friends someone was telling you about? I was able to experience a wide range of heritages thanks to the Jewish Shabbat dinners, Peruvian Quinceañeras, and Latvian Orthodox Easter Sundays.

Didn’t I tell you about my diverse friend group already? Although my own family was not particularly religious nor culturally focused, Won’t you know how amazing of a support system they’ve been to me? Won’t you know I was blessed with a cultureless, international clientele and got to travel to a few European countries? I’m blessed to have had the opportunity to help my father sustain our family here in America…save we die as paupers and vagabonds, Hashem forbid.

I don’t think we ever needed to remain prepared for changes in the air. Wawa was a lifesaver. I don’t know anything about today or tomorrow, and I am grateful those changes were coming quickly, regardless. I knew they always slapped a bit too hard right at the end of the season, but won’t you know we’re a tough bunch? Come down to the stadiums. Not an athlete, but maybe some people will get together soon, and they might also enjoy having 30,000 people screaming, “you suck.” Let’s go.

As Philadelphia's climate can be unpredictable, Delaware Valley's inhabitants naturally adopt standard patterns suitable for extreme temperature changes. In a turn of seasonal unpredictability, the variance requires a turtleneck, a light jacket, and a scarf to get through most days. The kids around here love to chill, and I always tell them where their coat is. This changing weather makes it so much easier for them to get up, course correct, and before I know it, their lazy nature, confusion, and gratitude to their neighbors for being the kindest, most honest, and hopelessly optimistic bunch.

6 notes · View notes