Primus Pilus

Excellent point. If one did not already have an understanding of the situation going in, the notion of the building revolution as portrayed in the opener did not make a great deak of obvious sense. In fact, without understanding the entire affair, you are quite right that one's sympathies tended to be not only with the red coats (at least while on trial for the Boston Massacre), but quite against the mob activity overall.

The series premiered last night with the first two (of 7) parts. I was impressed with everything... the actors*, the screenplay, the videography and visuals, etc. Adams is rightly portrayed as at first a reluctant participant in the growing Boston revolution and later as it's most fiery advocate in the Continental Congress. British sensibilities vs. the Boston mob mentality (though British viewers should understand the inherent American perspective) is well portrayed as well as the segmentation of the Congress. It may be a bit slower than one would expect as this isn't a series about the war itself (though clearly it plays a definitive role in backdrop). It is truly an examination of John Adams the man (and Abigail... finely played by Laura Linney) and his personal role in American independence. So far, it unquestionably does justice to McCullough's book and the historical record (understanding constriction for time constraint). A personal favorite moment is the depiction of Benjamin Franklin altering Jefferson's text in the Declaration of Independence and of course, Mr. Jefferson's portrayal as a relative "back-bencher". * While it might take a few moments to let the idea of Paul Giamatti as John Adams sink in, I do believe he does a fine job. In fact, I think he does look a bit like him. However, if people are going to dislike this series, I am tending to think that the title character might be the issue.

This film sounds as if it could be interesting, though I am slightly concerned that the religious tension might tend to take on a modern flavor. However, Alexandria is one of the ancient world's great cities and the library of course is worthy of overdue attention. I may be alone on this, but I must admit to not being a Rachel Weisz fan. I can't even really pinpoint a reason other than that I just don't like her (or the movies I've seen her in... the Fountain made me wretch). Pathetic excuse perhaps, but what can I do? I suppose she was chosen because she was type-cast as a librarian in an ancient world theme for the movie "The Mummy"?

Indeed, what's with all the fish around here? This place is slimy. Happy day anyway MPC.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the war itself was fought over slavery. The war was fought over the preservation of the union and that is clear. However, the reason for the secession of the southern states in the first place was state's rights and the predominant state's rights issue was in fact slavery. While the south had issues with the north beyond that single issue, every attempt at negotiation and compromise between the regions over several decades was focused almost entirely on the slavery issue (Missouri Compromise 1820, Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, the attempted Crittendon Compromise of 1860). The connection is unmistakable and can not really be denied regardless of how one feels about the school text books, the history of American imperialism or the current status of Iraq and it's oil reserves. I do agree that it should be readily apparent that most of the soldiers in the north were not aggressive abolitionists at heart and were not fighting a war for some great moral cause, but whether making slavery the primary issue in the books makes people feel better about themselves today or not is quite irrelevant in determining the underlying causes of the war.

Sundin is a damn good player but his team has been so bad the last few seasons, it's difficult to judge his current skill level fairly. In any case Nick Lidstrom, in my opinion, is not only the best Swede, but the best defenseman and among the best players in the league overall, but I am biased I suppose. I understand that he's not all that popular back in Sweden... something to do with a lack of international tournament success I guess. Peter Forsberg was probably the best player in the league overall a few years back, but injuries and age caught up with him. Zetterberg is rising fast.

Welcome Sequens, you've definately stumbled into the right place.

Thanks everyone... happy birthday to Maladict too

You should play hockey. If you did, and since your from Sweden, the Detroit Red Wings would sign you to a contract Niklas Lidstrom, Henrik Zetterberg, Mikael Samuelsson, Johan Franzen, Tomas Holmstrom, Niklas Kronwall, Andreas Lilja, Jonathan Ericsson and loads of young prospects. There's room for a Klingan.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. Other than that, Scipio Africanus should be admired. While his name is known he it not nearly as associated with the greatness of Rome as he should be (especially in comparison to the common awareness of Caesar and the emperors who followed). Scipio was not only perhaps Rome's greatest general, but was a respectable politician and a conscientious Roman who, and unlike Caesar, retired to private life at the end of a long and storied career (though clearly in the face of extreme political drama).

I try to remain fairly active but unfortunately don't play the team sports of my youth anymore -- American football, baseball and hockey. I still inline skate regularly and kayak as often as my wife and family will allow (in the summer). I play racquetball weekly and weight train (home machine) for tone and general health. I gave up golf a couple of years back because I was terribly frustrated by the inability to get any better and really didn't have the time (or money) to dedicate to it. Like G-Man, I also coach my son's baseball team. Other than that, does competitive drinking count?

ho do i get a hold of this? amazon? Sure amazon, any book store or library. Or online... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Caesar/index.html

Greek workers discovered around 1,000 graves, some filled with ancient treasures, while excavating for a subway system in the historic city of Thessaloniki, the state archaeological authority said Monday. Some of the graves, which dated from the first century B.C. to the 5th century A.D., contained jewelry, coins and various pieces of art, the Greek archaeological service said in a statement... Yahoo

Make it so number 1... I mean Cato!

Sorry Kosmo, I know exactly what you are implying, but reading this literally just made me laugh. Indeed, death can be a serious problem. At least in FDR's case, it was the pre-television age. Much of his physical condition was well concealed. Today that simply wouldn't happen, though some things can be masked depending upon personality. Despite the speculation on Reagan's Alzheimer's condition during his final years in the White House, had he been afflicted by the full onset of the disease, it could not have been hidden. However, Reagan's ability to make himself the butt of a joke helped disguise it as well.

Sure, but could anyone guarantee when? If so, the argument itself may have been unnecessary... and of course, it's difficult to tell a person without freedom just to wait 20 years simply because they've never known freedom anyway and it will come eventually when practical for those that held ownership. Yes, slavery would've ended either peacefully by economic necessity, forcibly through revolt or war, but when? Perhaps Henry Ford's assembly line would've found slavery advantageous enough to continue the practice? All what ifs of course, and still a violation of states rights in our strictest constitutional terms, but there are in fact some rights that I believe no state, nation or individual human should maintain. Edit: By the by, I am by no means suggesting that the war, reconstruction and ultimate emancipation of slaves went as well as it could or should have, but it doesn't justify it's continued existence in my personal reasoning.

Interestingly, on the age front, Bob Dole faced a similar concern at the age of 73 in 1996. 12 years later, while he may have some health issues at the age of 85, it's obvious that he was viable enough at the time. McCain is far more energetic than Dole was.

Given the truth in that, and that McCain needs chief executive experience in a running mate, would Romney be a good choice for the VP slot? I for one, a personal choice, lean toward Gov. Barbour of Mississippi. His efficacy is supported by the Ds attempting to destroy him, as they always do with talent:

That and the fact that the opposition simply wasn't compelling enough to rouse the party members against that media machine. Despite not really being much of a fan of the guy, I do believe that had Romney been a traditional Christian vs. a Mormon he would've won the nomination handily and Huckabee largely would've been a non-entity.

LOL well done. Caesar water-skiing

Indeed, but as I suggested in my reply to Caldrail above, the plantation owners (and hence the aristocracy) were dependent upon slavery. True enough, there's no question that Lincoln could've done more to be conciliatory to the southern states, and yes it was ultimately his opposition that killed the attempt by Crittendon. It should also be noted though, that aside from Lincoln's well documented debates with Douglas, he did very little public speaking. Most of the campaigning in the election of 1860 was handled by local party workers and officials. While Lincoln clearly played a major role in his own platform, the Republican ideology overall (at least in the election cycle) was shaped by many and was also dependent upon local flavors. Despite my personal view that Federal government should be limited and that states rights should have been, and still should be upheld, the notion of the allowing the propagation of slavery is so abhorrent that I simply find it personally difficult to disagree with Lincoln's actions (understanding the fact that his personal goal was not necessarily abolition).

Much of the opposition to slavery in the north by the common person was likely based on idea of free worker's rights and not necessarily an opposition to the subjugation of people, but I honestly couldn't say what the overwhelming sentiment of the average joe was. Whether northern whites saw wanted to free African slaves in the south or viewed them as second class doesn't mean that abolitionism was not a large and real movement. If it wasn't such a big issue, the Republican party would not have been born, incorporated the Whigs, and won the election of 1860. The key component of states rights advocates, especially in the south, was the right to slavery. Without slavery, states rights would've likely been slowly eroded without a civil war. The southern economy was an important component but it was an agricultural plantation economy dependent upon slavery and upon the single dominant cash crop of King Cotton. Due in part to the exhaustion of soil, the agricultural economy was also dependent upon expansion to western territories to find new lands to cultivate and to spread the profit potential of plantations. The large plantation owners needed to secure the propagation of slavery into these territories in order to maintain the status quo. Understand that this over generalization precludes the vast majority of white farmers who were not plantation owners and maintained minimal if any slave population. However, the small family farm was not an emerging economic force and of course never would be. The average white farmer in the south who did not own slaves, or very few, still viewed themselves as superior to African slaves and feared that the abolition of slavery would create a massive wave that unsettled the socio-political standing. Despite being largely poor themselves, they likely held onto the hope that with hard work, a bit of luck and of course, the continuation of slavery, they too could end up like the wealthy plantation owners that made up about 1% of the population, but dominated economically and politically.

Living here in Michigan, though I am definately not surprised I do find it rather amusing that the Dems are going to bother with a new election and that it's even being discussed. It was tried once and the party told it's members to F themselves. The Michigan Dems should tell them to shove it and let the national convention have fun fighting over which socialist will get to beat the real Democrat McCain in November.

For the most part, even the hard-core accuracy nuts around here were largely quite pleased with season 1. Season 2, in both accuracy and script writing, simply wasn't up snuff. Still definately worth a watch though.

Democracy is absolutely about majority rules and is completely democratic in both theory and practice. However, the United States is a Federal Republic so subjecting southern states to "majority rules" and impediment of states rights was absolutely an issue. The American civil war ended states rights as they were devised in the nations early formation and hence the reason that Lincoln is abhorred by most constitutionalists. However, Lincoln neither forced the southern states to secede by any acts of his presidency (since he had not been inaugurated) or even by his words. Lincoln neither created the Republican party nor it's entire platform (though he certainly brought it to prominence). He won the party nomination for the presidency and was in fact anti-slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. Obviously, this sentiment was enough to concern the states rights advocates and the pro-slavery states, but his position in itself was not necessarily a transgression against these rights. In fact, there were many hard line abolitionists who pushed Lincoln to do more, largely to no avail. Again, Lincoln had three choices: Allow the southern states to secede from the union, urge reconsolidation of the union by openly supporting states rights and the institution of slavery or force the southern states back into the union via war.