reading books

I can't imagine a political party or organization that isn't interested in getting certain people elected over other people.  What would be the point? 

I just finished that Haymarket book.  They hung four of them, one killed himself, and three got long prison sentences that were later commuted by Governor Altgeld.  The eight hour day didn't come a federal law until 1938, but I am going to have to do some reading up on that.

Somebody threw a bomb when the police were breaking up a labor meeting, which was part of the general ferment of the 1880s for an eight hour day.  Seven policemen were killed.  They never discovered who threw the bomb, and it doesn't seem like they cared.  They rounded up eight of the biggest mouths of the anarchists, and the prosecutor unilaterally declared that anybody who was involved in stimulating the Haymarket event was eligible to be strung up.  That wasn't the law, but the establishment really didn't like these guys, so that was that.
 
In defense of the establishment I will say these guys tended to shoot their mouths off, and they tended to get rhapsodic when they were discussing the equalizing powers of dynamite.  Well sometimes a law abiding anarchist needs a little dynamite to protect himself, and doesn't the second amendment speak of militias (these guys did have militias, though I expect it was more to attract babes than to do any actual shooting) and the right to bear arms?

My next book is Leon Trotsky's autobiography.  I've just read a couple pages and it is a little flowery, but not full of that commiespeak like dialectical materialism.


I never got turned away from the Democratic party.  I think what you are referring to was when I tried to be part of the get out the vote for Obama activity and I ended up collecting signatures for my local alderman.

It was in Champaign where I worked on the McGovern campaign and later was a precinct captain.  No membership card, no newsletter, no dues, no stinking badge.

The word liberal has indeed gone through some changes.  Originally I think it just meant being an anti-monarchist and being for democracy.  Barry Goldwater would have been a liberal under that definition, but it has become more descriptive of leftist, but to the right of the socialists.  Or evil incarnate as your ilk has branded it.  I don't know how you did it, but nowadays nobody calls themselves liberal if they are running for office.  That's why we use the word progressive, because who is against progress?  Teddy Roosevelt was pretty leftist for his time (though he was for hanging the Haymarket Eight high), and he would certainly be a RINO RINO today.  I say RINO RINO because nowadays those guys that used to like to call other republicans RINOs, are now being called RINOs by the Trumpists.


That book I was speaking of, the one that I can't remember, that I read in high school, was one that proposed to debunk popular myths, and it was there where I think I read that wolves don't hunt in packs.  I brought up that fun fact amidst my high school chums and was laughed out of the proverbial malt shop (why didn't we have a malt shop like other typical teens, like Archie?  Who did you go for, Betty or Veronica?).  But, but, I stammered, I read it in a book.  How could something be wrong if it was written in a book?

Now of course we have the google machine and wiki, and let me say wiki does say that most of the meals that wolves get, they get by hunting alone or with their spouse maybe.

If wolves are so monogamous then why do we call those guys who go through the girls wolves?  Answer me that one.  If I am the alpha wolf I am fooling with the beta lady wolves, and I expect the lady alpha wolf is messing with a handsome young beta from time to time.  That goes against the lady alpha being the only one with pups, but I wonder about that.  Maybe I should read a book.