Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
TPM has an article about Beck's rally last weekend that includes this picture of two of the attendees, Victoria Jackson and a Patrick Henry impersonator:
I continue to be amused by the irony of the tea partiers -- who claim to be all about supporting the Constitution -- invoking the memory of Patrick Henry. Are they really ignorant of the fact that Patrick Henry opposed the passage of the Constitution? He refused to take part in drafting it and then opposed it tooth and nail after it was written.
Patrick Henry is the one who said of the passage of the constitution, "I conceive the republic to be in extreme danger." The new constitution, he said, would mean the "utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the States." If Henry had had his way, Virginia would not have ratified the constitution and it would likely have failed.
I love these little ironies.
Politics
Comments
Regarding Patrick Henry: Perhaps education has improved since the Dark Ages when I was a girl, but in those days, we learned that Henry was a great patriot, and his opposition to the Constitution was never mentioned. I did not learn that until I was an adult, reading history on my own. I hope things have changed for the better, but it doesn't look like it.
Posted by: Ellie | September 3, 2010 10:08 AM
If the tea partiers actually read the copies of the constitution they're supposedly carrying around, they'd probably find that they're opposed to it, too.
Posted by: Walt | September 3, 2010 10:17 AM
Really funny that ultra-conservative Tea party folk dress up as the revolutionaries (anti-conservatives) of 1776. Back then, conservative meant loyalty to the British crown. Today it means recolonizing our country, by corporations. That is the real irony, and that is what Glenn Beck is hired to distract us from.
I don't fault Victoria Jackson, though. One cannot help being that stupid. It's not an act on her part.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | September 3, 2010 10:22 AM
Revisionism anyone?
http://www.irontontribune.com/news/2010/sep/02/history-comes-alive-ous-henry-visit/Posted by: Chilidog | September 3, 2010 10:22 AM
Victoria Jackson also wrote an inane piece on the event for WorldNetDaily, in which she also discussed how she tried to get Muslim cabbies to admit that they want to kill people. Nice timing.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=198265
Posted by: Bartholomew | September 3, 2010 10:24 AM
Thanks for ruining my day, chilidog. Before I even had my coffee.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 3, 2010 10:29 AM
Ellie:
Well, I would argue he was a great patriot in spite of his opposition to the Constitution and in spite of his promotion of using the state to tax people in support of their religious denominations. I don't think school curriculms back in the old days left those items out purposefully since the curriculum I've encountered don't go into much detail on how the Constitution was both developed and supplanted the Articles of Confederation, where such mention of both would be appropriate. Back then there were no Advanced Placement classes available except for perhaps in the very best public schools. It'd be great if dogmeat weighed-in on this matter regarding what's it like now (he currently teaches history at the high school level).
Lastly Mr. Henry was a notable lobbyist for adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, notable in the sense that his promotion of such helped insure consideration by the federalists and other supporters of ratification of the Constitution given the respect he'd earned by that time.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2010 10:31 AM
That's a good point about the 1776 conservatives. To this day in Britain, the name "Tory" is used as a nick name for a supporter or member of the Conservative Party here in Britain.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2010 10:39 AM
As Ellie stated @1, high school and college history dealt pretty kindly with Henry, emphasizing some aspects, completely hiding others.
I have visited Colonial Williamsburg many times over the years and most enjoyed (after the ginger cookies) the 'live' entertainment. When Jefferson or another costumed worthy addressed the crowd as he might have done then and discussed his ideas, they often came wonderfully alive. I can never recall Patrick Henry speak in opposition to the constitution. I will have to write them and inquire why. Many of the founding patriots had warts we now discuss without diminishing the good work they did. I see Henry's opposition as part of the political climate and feel it should be included.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 3, 2010 10:40 AM
Lord, I just read the Victoria Jackson piece Bartholomew linked. What a piece of dreck. It's as though she's trying to channel Hunter S. Thompson, but without the booze, drugs, or wit. Just self-absorbed stream-of-unconsciousness.
She actually takes the time to wonder why there's only white people in the crowd, but then concludes that it must be the brown-skinned people's fault. Ouch.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 3, 2010 10:46 AM
Curse you Bartholomew! I read that and now I have to sue you for inflicting brain damage on me!!!!!
Posted by: Chilidog | September 3, 2010 10:58 AM
That Victoria Jackson piece is pure gold (from Goldline). It includes this delightful brain poop (bold is mine):
Yes, it would be terrible if people thought you were crazy and not just stunningly stupid.
Posted by: peaches | September 3, 2010 11:01 AM
Victoria Jackson wouldn't know a communist if one bit her on the ass.
Posted by: LightningRose | September 3, 2010 11:03 AM
Ugh, Patrick Henry. What I'd give for a James Madison impersonator to go put him in his place.
I love revisionist history. =P
Posted by: Sophia | September 3, 2010 11:06 AM
Yes, the whole Victoria Jackson thing is "gold", though Jackson is neither crazy nor stupid.
Posted by: hedberg | September 3, 2010 11:17 AM
Did Patrick Henry have a beard? I'm pretty sure they weren't in fashion back in the 18th century. Of course, he probably didn't wear a fake tri-cornered hat, either.
Posted by: wheatdogg | September 3, 2010 11:34 AM
well, i am disappointed no teabaggers actually teabag at these tea parties. or do handstands in their underwear.
Posted by: rob | September 3, 2010 11:40 AM
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence (i.e., that they can actually read).
Posted by: Just Sayin' | September 3, 2010 11:42 AM
Michael Heath @7
We certainly learned both about the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. In fact, we were required to memorize the Preamble and the Bill of Rights. There were "advanced placement" classes, although that's not what they were called. I was in one -- traumatic for me since it required that one be in advanced (or whatever it was called at the time) algebra. I am personally math challenged, so it was not a happy experience. I don't know if we were one of the "best public schools." It was a school like all schools in the area. It is usually best not to assume things about schools around the country, present or past. All regions and localities are and were not homogenous. Regardless of all the teaching about the Constitution, the only thing that was stressed about Mr. Henry was "...give me liberty..." Anything other than that, good or bad, was ignored.
Posted by: Ellie | September 3, 2010 11:58 AM
Another gold nugget from the Jackson article:
I swear, I'm almost convinced she's a Poe--the complete lack of self-awareness in that paragraph is nearly too great to be attributed to an actual and sincere human being....
Posted by: Freemage | September 3, 2010 12:04 PM
Walt is on the right track. Just as they can disdain a merciful Jesus while claiming to love Jesus, these Beckerheads can think like antifederalists while believing it's the Constitution that they worship.
What would they think of Edmund Randolph, who opened the Constitutional Convention with "Ok, guys, we all know why we're here. This confederation thing just doesn't work. What we need is a real national government that can bring the States to heel, overrule their laws, and force them to pay taxes" (Yes, I paraphrase)? And when asked if he intended to abolish the states altogether, didn't answer either No or Yes? Or the fact that the rest of the Committee produced a Constitution with a national government so powerful that Randolph himself thought they had overshot the mark?
The Tea Partiers should be looking toward Patrick Henry as their hero. But their religious approach to civics, and their worship of mythical Founding Fathers, doesn't allow them to admit that, like Henry, they hate the Constitution. It would be like admitting that they despise Jesus for saying "Turn the other cheek" and "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 3, 2010 12:06 PM
Why worry about what history says? I mean, once they are in power, they can make it fit their version of the truth.
Posted by: mercurianferret | September 3, 2010 12:25 PM
Victoria Jackson: Russians aren't white. (see #20 above). Now, who still thinks she's not a blithering idiot?
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | September 3, 2010 12:28 PM
I just love this part from V. Jackson:
She experiences no persecution and only grows more paranoid! That's contemporary conservatism for you.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 3, 2010 12:33 PM
That photo reminds me of a scene from Bones, Season 1 Episode 18 "The Man with the Bone" (yes, haha, bone), in which the mayor of a small oceanside town known for its pirate history wears a pirate costume as part of his effort to promote tourism. I haven't been able to find an image of him yet -- can anyone help on that? The one I'm thinking of is that one where the mayor poses with his wench-garbed wife.
Posted by: xebecs | September 3, 2010 12:47 PM
I belong to one of the ethnic groups she mentioned. I happen to speak English. And I do watch Glenn Beck, on occasion. But I do so for the same reason I watch Jerry Springer on occasion: because crazy people fascinate the hell out of me.
Posted by: AL | September 3, 2010 12:48 PM
This woman is /mad/.
Posted by: G. R. McIntyre | September 3, 2010 12:58 PM
I just wanted to comment on the education-Patrick Henry thought. In my high school civics and history classes, we did learn which "Founding Fathers" dissented from the Constitution. They were not framed as unpatriotic in the least. It is patriotic to dissent from the majority if you feel they are making the wrong decision for the country. That is the lesson we were taught about Patrick Henry. I only mention it because my HS education was relatively recent, and perhaps this does represent a change. Although, of course, I live in VT, so encouraging dissent is somewhat standard.
Posted by: valor | September 3, 2010 12:58 PM
"Victoria Jackson: Russians aren't white. (see #20 above). Now, who still thinks she's not a blithering idiot?"
She's an idiot in the same way that Borat is from Kazakhstan.
Is it forbidden to reveal spoilers here?
Posted by: hedberg | September 3, 2010 1:14 PM
As I recall Patrick Henry eventually came around to the Federalist side later in life. He came to see the nation would be too chaotic, quarrelsome, and fractured without it. Or did I buy into some of that revisionist crap?
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 3, 2010 1:17 PM
xebecs:
I wonder if that script is based on Frank Ney, Mayor of Nanaimo, BC some time back. he was (in)famous for dressing in pirate regalia, and, in fact, is commemorated by a statue on the waterfront dressed in "full pirate". The story along with a cropped picture, are here: http://www.nanaimoinformation.com/pirate-town.php
Also, Frank did this as a promotion and a joke. I don't think Patrick Henry is joking.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | September 3, 2010 1:22 PM
T. Bruce McNeely: That's pretty cool! I live in Northern Virginia, so I'm familiar with the mariner-oriented attractions along the Atlantic coast, but I didn't know there was anything equivalent out there in BC.
BTW, I mentioned the connection because when I first saw the photo above I thought it was actually FROM the Bones episode. I was wrong, of course, and I'm sure if I saw the scene I would immediately be startled by just how different they were. The mind is a funny, tricky place.
Posted by: xebecs | September 3, 2010 1:32 PM
@hedberg - You seem to be implying that Victoria Jackson is a radical poe performance artist who's work would put Andy Kaufman to shame. If that's the case spoilers would be most welcome.
Posted by: peaches | September 3, 2010 1:32 PM
So... if Victoria Jackson did have shorts on, she would've kicked up into a handstand and exposed her crotch to Lincoln?
There's only one possible explanation: Victoria Jackson has gotta be a liberal plant.
Posted by: John Hinkle | September 3, 2010 1:53 PM
Her performance looks to me to be an obvious hoax. It's pretty well done and, in my opinion, extraordinarily funny. Much, much better than Andy Kaufman ever was.
Posted by: hedberg | September 3, 2010 2:00 PM
To be fair, the only thing most people hear about Patrick Henry is that he said, "Give me liberty or give me death," and that he might have been that bald captain on star trek. It's easy to pretend that famous people who are long dead would agree with you. Especially, when you don't really care about what they actually thought. The long dead not only can't refute you, but even people with living memories of the dead person's opinions and attitudes can't refute you either, because they are long dead, too. So believing that Patrick Henry fought off the borg (sounds kind of evil and french) to save the constitution is the easy path to historical revisionism. It takes little effort. However, to pull that with someone who is still within the living memory of the public, and to basically believe that the dead person would support a cause that is 540 degrees from the causes the person supported in his life time, now, that is historical revisionism that we can all be proud of.
From article ...
Frank from South Carolina. -- "As for where Martin Luther King would stand today, I think he would stand along besides Glenn Beck and his beliefs. He was a minister, and Glenn Beck is very religious, and I really think they would be standing side by side in their beliefs."
Just reading that took effort, I can't imagine the training that went into be able to say something like that.
Posted by: holytape | September 3, 2010 2:11 PM
I noticed she didn't mention the Mexicans.
Posted by: Chilidog | September 3, 2010 2:16 PM
From Victoria Jackson's article, when she is offered and accepts a press pass: "I had kind of wanted to suffer with the crowd, but given the choice..."
So here she is, straight up admitting she is willing to sell out the masses for her own comfort. And she's telling them this to their face.
Of course, since each of them would do the same, they don't hold it against her.
If Hedberg is right, this woman deserves a whole truckload of Oscars. Her imitation of an animal so stupid it fails the Gallup mirror test is perfect.
Posted by: Yahzi | September 3, 2010 2:25 PM
OMG, more proof that Hedberg is on to something. Look at this exchange (emphasis added):
Victoria, talking to a woman outside an elevator:
"The president is a communist! Communism hates Christianity."
She makes a patronizing face, "How do you know that?"
"His whole childhood was Marxism."
"Have you ever read Marx?" she says arrogantly.
"No. Oh, you're saying church people are stupid?"
...
Her ignorance angers me. She is obviously one of the brainwashed 20-somethings who had liberalism shoved down their throats at university. The amount I've read of Marx is the amount she's read of the Bible. She is lost and very self-important about it.
OMFG. OMFG. The woman who has been to university and read Marx is the one who is ignorant.
No person coherent enough to put words together could possibly be this insane. Except... it's published in WND, and they (and their editors) aren't Poes. How did this obvious insanity slip past them?
Is it possible Hedberg is wrong? Can humans this dumb actually operate a computer?
Posted by: Yahzi | September 3, 2010 2:33 PM
That's because all she knows about Russia has been filtered through right-wing punditry about the Cold War. As I'm sure you're aware, such punditry routinely dehumanized the Russian peop (and cast them as "non-white").
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 3, 2010 2:46 PM
"The Russian people," obviously.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 3, 2010 2:48 PM
If hedberg is right she deserves more than a truckload of Oscars. They need to create a Nobel Prize for satire just to give it to her. She seems to have been this crazy for years and if she's faking she is the most dedicated-to-a-bit commedian that ever lived.
Posted by: peaches | September 3, 2010 3:16 PM
Real mariners despise anything having to do with pirates.
@ Ellie--my HS history mirrored yours. (And for my BS, I needed no history whatsoever...)
Posted by: Diane G. | September 3, 2010 4:05 PM
@xebecs
http://i54.tinypic.com/2zjcoj6.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/2s9zsq8.jpg
Posted by: Babatunde | September 3, 2010 4:06 PM
Babatunde@44: Awesome! As expected, the physical similarities are almost nonexistent, but it was still enough to make me think of it.
Posted by: xebecs | September 3, 2010 5:07 PM
If VickyJ is a Poe she's doing it like Nick Nolte's character in Vonnegut's "Mother Night"--and doing the same sort of damage. I apply Occam's Razor and just call her an idiot.
I also would note that, looking at the photo, she seems to be heading toward Sally Struthers or Kirstie Alley infomercial dress sizing.
Posted by: democommie | September 3, 2010 5:08 PM
Diane G@43: Pirates were mariners whether you want to think so or not. It doesn't make them admirable, but then I never claimed that it did. I just used the phrase "mariner-oriented" as shorthand for all things nautical whether pirate-related or not. Sorry if I pressed your hot button, it was by no means intentional.
Posted by: xebecs | September 3, 2010 5:12 PM
"If VickyJ is a Poe she's doing it like Nick Nolte's character in Vonnegut's "Mother Night"--and doing the same sort of damage. I apply Occam's Razor and just call her an idiot."
The simplest and most obvious explanation is that it's a gag. Watch the clip with O'Reilly and Jackson. It's clear to me that it's a hoax and O'Reilly knows it.
That doesn't mean that Jackson's not a Christian conservative Beck fan -- she may be. It's impossible to tell anything at all about her beliefs from watching her performance, in my opinion. It's like Colbert only slightly more subtle -- but not much more. Or, if you like, it's like Nolte. How much does Nolte's performance reveal about Nolte's beliefs/sympathies? Do you think that an application of "Occam's Razor" would lead you to believe anything about Nolte, other than that he is an actor?
Posted by: hedberg | September 3, 2010 5:46 PM
Um, why? I mean, she's reprehensible for what comes out of her mouth, not because of the size of her ass.
Posted by: twincats | September 3, 2010 5:54 PM
I think it's amusing just generally how enamored modern conservatism is with the founders who were by and large their day's version of progressives. The American Revolution was one of the more radical and liberal revolutionary transfers of government in history. It was, among other things, a "fundamental transformation" of governance, not just once, but twice (the actual war and then the supplanting of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution). I somehow have a feeling that if the Tea Partiers had been alive in 1776, they'd have denounced revolutionaries as traitors to the crown.
I know that Patrick Henry seems like an appealing fellow to Tea Partiers given his famous "Give me liberty or give me death" line and his well-known support for republicanism (with a small r of course). However, I think above all else, Henry was anti-authoritarian which is something that the Tea Party right is most assuredly not. Certain founders (most notably Thomas Paine but in some respects men like Henry and even Jefferson as well) bordered on anarchism, at least in a philosophical sense. That's antithetical to modern conservatism, but they don't really seem to care.
By the way, just looking at Jefferson's Wikipedia page gives this interesting quote in regards to how the Tea Party right views the Founders and the Constitution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." Sounds like Jefferson wouldn't be a big fan of originalism and strict constructionalists.
Posted by: Ryan | September 3, 2010 6:39 PM
Abby Normal:
Humbly submitted since I haven't read any Henry biographies. However the general histories I've read have Henry continuing to honorably serve his country after his two notable failures where he didn't lost the respect of his countryman in spite of his dissent. For example George Washington first offered the post of Sec. of State to Mr. Henry which he turned down prior to selecting Thomas Jefferson.
In the 1790s he became allies to both Washington and Adams regarding foreign policy where the federalists favored Britain over France and Jefferson and Madison offered an opposing position (where Henry was a frequent target of their ire). Henry was also a powerful ally to John Marshall in his rise to power where he eventually became the most powerful and influential jurist in American history. Henry was even elected to the Virginia House as a federalist.
For these reasons I pipe up in defense of Patrick Henry in order that we don't turn him into a caricature and an ideological enemy to the U.S. merely because he was clearly on the wrong side of two issues (church-state, Constitution). However even on the Constitution is influence was arguably* beneficial given his subsequent influence in securing a Bill of Rights (though his opposition came well before anyone discovered no Bill of Rights would be initially presented).
*I'm not completely persuaded a Bill of Rights has better protected our rights, mostly but not completely.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2010 6:41 PM
hedberg "...though Jackson is neither crazy nor stupid."
You're half right.
Reverend Rodney "Victoria Jackson: Russians aren't white. (see #20 above). Now, who still thinks she's not a blithering idiot?"
I'm guessing you haven't seen Red Dawn.
Scott Hanley "She experiences no persecution and only grows more paranoid! That's contemporary conservatism for you."
Stranger still, in her version of "Orwellian", Orwellianists have no opinions. For the Two Minutes Hate they just stand there.
"It is patriotic to dissent from the majority if you feel they are making the wrong decision for the country."
Liberal lies! Dissent is only patriotic when the president is a Democrat!
xebecs "...but I didn't know there was anything equivalent out there in BC."
A local area has "Buccaneer Days", harking back to the time when the nearby ocean was clogged with literally zeroes and zeroesz of buccaneers. If the modern reinactments are reliable, they terrorized people with pancake breakfasts and rugby tournaments.
holytape "Just reading that took effort, I can't imagine the training that went into be able to say something like that."
Of course MLK would stand with Beck now. Just like Beck would've stood with MLK back then.
twincats "Um, why? I mean, she's reprehensible for what comes out of her mouth, not because of the size of her ass."
Close. That should be; "...she's reprehensible, not for the size of her ass, but for what she pulls out of it."
Ryan "However, I think above all else, Henry was anti-authoritarian which is something that the Tea Party right is most assuredly not."
They're anti-authoritarian. It just depends who the authorities are, that's all. They're patriotic enough to stand up and say "We're as mad as hell and [as long as we aren't in power] we aren't going to take it anymore!"
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 3, 2010 8:36 PM
@ Michael Heath # 51:
I think the biggest mistake was to number the amendments. Now the wingnuts think lower numbers trump higher ones, like the Three Laws of Robotics.
All they get out of the First Amendment is that anyone telling them they're wrong violates their Freedom of Speech, and since their religion requires them to force it on everybody else, trying to prevent that violates their Freedom of Religion.
The Second Amendment is a whole, entire sentence, so they skip over the Well-Regulated Militia part, and conclude they're guaranteed the "right" to own all the guns they want.
All the other Amendments are superseded by these two overriding Amendments, so they don't matter.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | September 3, 2010 8:53 PM
As a native Virginian, generally proud of my state's producing many of the country's Founders, it still irks me that Virginia was the 10th state to ratify the Constitution - meaning that it was already in effect, having required only 9 ratifications. Has Henry succeeded in getting VA to not ratify, it wouldn't have prevented the Constitution from entering into force.
Perhaps it would have floundered later with the major powers - Virginia, New York and North Carolina - not having joined. Or it could have strengthen those small power that had ratified against the influence of those major powers, perhaps leading even to their denying VA, NY and NC statehood due to the legislative balance of power shift it would have resulted in.
I'm drifting off into some interesting alternative historical speculation here, but my point is that Henry's role wasn't has influential as suggested. bala
Posted by: Tony | September 3, 2010 9:04 PM
Tony @ 54:
On the bright side Virginians were the primary architects of the Constitution and deftly ushered its development through the Convention. Virginians also played a primary role in effectively marketing its passage with the other states. I'd argue no state deserves more credit than Virginia.
On the items the developers of the Constitution got wrong, especially the proportionate power each state gets in the Senate regardless of their respective populations which significantly disenfranchises large state citizens, I'm not sure there was a viable alternative to getting the non-Virginian slave states to go along otherwise.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2010 9:48 PM
Michael,
That's a good question. I don't claim to know the answer, but I do know that Virginia had far more slaves than other states (they made a big business out of selling them to the slave states that weren't "producing" (pardon the grotesquery) enough on their own), so maybe it wouldn't have been an absolute killer in the other states. And some slave states then, like Georgia and SC, were fairly small in population compared to Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, so they were more interested in securing equal representation in the Senate.
Still, why not grab all you can, and since without their slaves they would have been even smaller in proportion to the bigger northern states (although probably smaller in proportion to VA), it makes sense that they might have made that a make-or-break issue. Especially as the bigger conflicts that led to the Constitutional convention seemed to be occurring in the North, there might have been greater willingness in the South to keep going under the Articles?
That's all speculation, and I bet someone here can tell me if I'm on target or not.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 3, 2010 10:12 PM
hedberg:
very inapt comparison between Jackson and Nolte. She's not, sfaia, being paid to ACT like a delusional fucking moron--it seems to be her default state. I don't think she's that clever by a long shot. I'm not sure what you're basing your assertion on. Nolte is a skilled actor who has done comedy and drama. Compared to him Jackson is a fucking mannequin.
Judy Holliday, Betty White, Marilyn Monroe, Darryl Hannah; all blondes who acted like ditzes. VickyJ is not acting.
twincats:
Sorry, I did not mean to offend. But, Vicky is obviously quite taken with herself and she's beginning to lose the only real working capital she ever had--her looks.
Posted by: democommie | September 3, 2010 10:50 PM
Michael, I'm not certain how you want me to weigh in on this issue. If you're talking about AP classes, neither US history nor American Government have specific requirements that would necessarily lead to a more in depth understanding of Patrick Henry beyond his liberty or death speech. A more general understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions is far more likely to be established, so really if the individual teacher didn't know much about Patrick Henry, they likely wouldn't get into the details of his opposition to the constitution. I knew one AP Gov teacher who didn't spend any time on the Federalist Papers, one did a quick brush over, and another I know spends a good deal of time and ties them to other concepts in today's politics. I don't know what the first teacher's AP scores looked like, but I do know that the other two teacher's scores, the one who uses the Federalist papers a lot are phenomenal, the other teacher's scores were horrendous. Obviously test scores aren't the end all and be all of learning, but in this case they're the only real measure I can point to and suggest that a good understanding of at least the arguments in favor of the constitution are important in the class.
In addition to my AP classes I do teach a non-AP Civics/American Government class and, in that class, I do talk a little about the duality of Jefferson's nature (anti-slavery slave holder), Madison's efforts with the constitution and bill of rights, I do talk about Henry's objection to the Constitution, and I do talk about the overall Anti-Federalists objections and that the compromise of the Bill of Rights came out of these debates. I tend to be a little more history leaning, so really I spend a little more time on the history than someone who is more poli-sci, or more legal.
As for nationally, I couldn't say. Each state sets up their own standards. The standards I've worked with generally don't say much about Henry beyond his liberty or death speech so again it comes down to the individual knowledge and interests of the classroom teacher. As we've seen with Texas, all it takes is a small group of ideologues to really screw up standards. Some of the standards I've seen have been pretty damned stupid.
Posted by: dogmeat | September 4, 2010 4:38 PM
Victoria Jackson...didn't she used to be somebody?
Posted by: Schmice | September 4, 2010 8:31 PM
If he's supposed to be Patrick Henry, why is he wearing some sort of military uniform?
Posted by: Jeffrey Smith | September 5, 2010 9:55 AM
Oh so that idiot with the blonde is supposed to be Patrick Henry?
I thought he was trying for Capt'n Jack Sparrow. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 5, 2010 10:07 AM
It's kind of funny, when I first saw it I was thinking "Ethan Allen?"
Posted by: dogmeat | September 5, 2010 3:42 PM
dogmeat @ 62:
Well, it is Labor Day Weekend and we all know that means, "SUPER DOOPER SALE OF THE CENTURY, NEVER TO BE REPEATED, USA ! USA !! USA !!!
Hey, I'm beginning to wonder if all of the Teatardlicans(C) have learned their sloganeering and general writing skills from a group of auto and furnture salespeople.
Posted by: democommie | September 6, 2010 8:05 AM
democommie, what's the (C) represent?
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 6, 2010 8:12 AM
Michael Heath:
I like to put the copyright symbol on anything that looks like a neologism, just in case I find out FauxNews or some other reichtard outlet is using--without paying my my licensing fee!
Posted by: democommie | September 6, 2010 1:11 PM
Washington Post reporter, Hanna Rosin, has written an interesting book,"God's Harvard," about "Patrick Henry" College, created to groom evangelical Christian homeschoolers for positions of influence in government and business. From the crib, they're raised to battle secularism and "Take Back the Land" for God. Not sure why such a hideous group of people chose Patrick Henry as their mascot. Maybe somebody else can figure it out.
See http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=58673
Apologies for veering a bit off topic. :(
Posted by: Lynn | September 7, 2010 1:14 AM
Not sure why such a hideous group of people chose Patrick Henry as their mascot. Maybe somebody else can figure it out.
Well he was one of yer crazier founding fathers. That probably has something to do with it.
(Judging from the way the alleged Patrick Henry impersonator up there in the photo is dressed, I would guess that somewhere along the line someone got Patrick Henry confused with Paul Revere. Not an uncommon mistake.)
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2010 2:35 AM
386sx "(Judging from the way the alleged Patrick Henry impersonator up there in the photo is dressed, I would guess that somewhere along the line someone got Patrick Henry confused with Paul Revere. Not an uncommon mistake.)"
Sheesh. All the Patriotic Revolutionaries dressed like Paul Revere, just like all the American Puritans had hats and shoes with buckles and Jesus and the Apostles* were all practically Aryan (except Judas, who had a hooked nose. You know that I mean).
* Touring in the Spring with Josie and the Pussycats.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 7, 2010 2:46 AM
I doubt if Paul Revere even dressed like Paul Revere. I didn't know the guy, so I'm just guessin of course!!
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2010 2:50 AM
The pictures don't lie. He, with the other Raiders, wore cheap velvet and frilly shirts.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 7, 2010 3:03 AM
That one (real name Mark Lindsey) was a wild man, all right. After he totaled five Miuras, and Lamborghini wouldn't sell him any more*, I used to see him tooling around in his yellow Lotus Esprit. I always gave him a wide berth, I can tell you.
*He's the reason they wouldn't sell a Countach to anyone they hadn't dealt with before and didn't trust not to give the car a bad name.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | September 7, 2010 4:20 AM
"(except Judas, who had a hooked nose. You know what I mean)"
Compulsory quote from Monthy Python: [the pope complains about Jesus in the painting of The Last Supper]
Michelangelo: "Do you think he looks too jewish? I thought I made Judas look most jewish".
Posted by: Birger Johansson | September 7, 2010 10:26 AM