From Novus Ordo Seclorum:

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/mcdnov.html

It is obvious why Washington was trusted, however; the more elusive question is how a man could become so utterly trustworthy. Admittedly, he was far from being an ordinary man, but he was a long way from being a saint. As a soldier he had been capable of blundering, rashness, and poor judgment. He was addicted to gambling, apparently indulged in a good dealing of wenching, was avid in the pursuit of wealth, and was a “most horrid swearer and blasphemer.” He was vain, pompous, pretentious, and hot-tempered in the extreme; and though he was normally a perfect gentleman in his public behavior, he could be a perfect alley cat in his private behavior. Even in public his conduct was not always free of blemish. During the war he had been willing to hang an innocent British prisoner, Capt. Charles Asgill, in retaliation against the unauthorized behavior of some hooligan New York Loyalists; and Washington was not sufficiently magnanimous to grant the request of the unfortunate Maj. John Andre to be shot as a soldier rather than to be hanged as a spy. And yet a whole nation could entrust him with its liberty and, indeed, its fate, in revolutionary circumstances which almost invariably breed Caesars and Cromwells, and could know that it was safe to do so.

As quoted here:

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/01/george-washingtons-character.html

As I said, too much emphasis on civility. And again, up yours and good night.

Hats off to Peev for publishing the quote and then having the guts to back it up on TV. Tucker is such a hack. The press is just another big business as far as US politics is concerned. They kiss ass to everyone in town and then print cloying material that panders to their bffs. If that quote was to an American journalist I am sure we never would have heard it. This really just highlights how the press coverage of our elections is so biased. In this campaign Obama has been portrayed as saintly vs. the bloodthirsty old maid HRC. Whatever happened to true "fair and balanced" reporting?

FORREST McDONALD is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Alabama and author of sixteen books, including States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876; The American Presidency; The Presidency of George Washington; and The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. He was named by the NEH as the sixteenth Jefferson Lecturer, the nation's highest honor in the humanities.

I think it's more likely you are debating an argument he didn't make or assuming he's made one from his remarks in an article that lacked full context for the remark. "Such things" is pretty vague. He could have been referring to dildos and we all know they've been around since Sappho, but not in colonial Conn. And condoms were first used by the ancient Egyptians, and not for contraception.

http://www.contraceptiononline.org/contrareport/article01.cfm?art=93

"In 1789, they didn't have such things, but the people of Connecticut would have felt perfectly free to regulate the use of contraceptives as immoral behavior," he added. "Our whole standards and our sexual attitudes have changed." And therein lies the problem in adapting an 18th-century document and concepts of freedom to the 21st century.

"My leanings are toward the so-called originalist positions in constitutional interpretation," Professor McDonald said, "but you can't really be an originalist if you know what it originally was." He said, given his field of study, that he had "lived in the 18th century most of my adult life." And he added: "I love these guys. But there were an awful lot of things they took for granted that I just couldn't live with. I own 20 acres of land, and I'm sitting right in the middle of it. In the 18th century, my neighbors would have had the right to cross it to gather wood, let their hogs and cows run across it, cross it to get somewhere else."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/weekinreview/18purdum.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

I have noticed that online journalists in America have begun to distort many things when it suits their purpose. Recent examples: Hillary Clinton's tears on both occasions were portrayed as deliberate acts to gain sympathy rather than spur-of-the-moment reactions to comforting statements by well wishers--much ado about nothing. Also, the taking of Bill Clinton's remarks out of context about the South Carolina primary and deliberately distorting it to imply a racial motive planned out and executed for the sake of winning rather than giving the ex-president the benefit of the doubt that he might be a typical spouse protecting his family member. Jonathan Chait's inflammatory depiction of Hillary as a maniacal politician out to destroy the Democratic Party is another egregious case in point. Such instances show the low standards of American journalism. The media are becoming the harpies of cyberspace and have no right to look down their noses at anyone, much less the British reporter.

That would be like you to refuse to read the links and see what I am trying to explain to you. Stubborn.

If you wish to believe that condoms were widely used and available in each one of the 13 vastly different American colonies I can't disabuse you of the notion. All the man is saying is that most Connecticuttians wouldn't have been familiar with them, relying instead on other methods of contraception, but would have had no problem banning them. If anyone is being the historical revisionist here, I'd have to say it was you.

Whatever it was, at least Tucker Carlson didn't unintentionally reveal anything about it -- unlike Hester Prynne.

Looks like we've all contracted a bad case of the Saturday Night OT's. Or is that DT's, DCLaw1? Anyway, thanks all. Even if we all hate ourselves in the morning, I've enjoyed every word of it. A thought for all of you shoveling snow to the east of me -- More antifreeze!

And so to bed.

Is there any subject more devoid of intellectual substance than the discussion of whether the media is teh biased?

Adversarial or coy doesn't make much difference unless you're saying something substantive. The Obama aide didn't lose her spot because of the substance of her charge (that the Clintons are any-weapon-to-hand opportunists -- a statement that certainly isn't out of bounds and may well be 100% true) but because she uttered a single badly chosen word: monster.

Glen, I'm all for calling Carlson a piece of shit. He is. Obviously. And while I'm sure the monster quote is technically fair game, it does strike me as adding nothing to the conversation beyond sensationalism. Which makes it kindof sad and empty. Would we really be less informed in a meaningful way if we only knew the substance of the 'monster' quote without the flame bait? Especially when she tried, almost immediately, to take it back?

Seems sleazy. Fair, but awfully sleazy.