Jones Alley

This one's for Milo

2011-11-17T14:22:00.002-06:00

Milo would have loved this:
'Kraftwerk Who?' Pioneering '50s Synthesizer unearthed in French Barn

Thanks for sharing, Ronni!

Keep On Keeping On...

2011-06-04T01:04:00.004-05:00

Hi Milo. It's been just over a year now.

I wonder if you and Milo Jr. (pictured) know what's happening in your beloved country. If there is something after death--perhaps ultimate truth and knowledge--you might. Perhaps, if if there is, and you're aware of what's going on here, you can pitch in and straighten out some folks still here on the planet who don't have a clue, because we are headed for the edge like a down-bound train and we can use all the enlightenment we can get.

If not, well, it was still nice knowing you. We listen to your music every day. The kitties prr for you. You have a legacy. And we are still fighting the good fight. We sure wish you were here with us, but some days we envy you for not being here as a witness.

Happy Birthday, Milo.

2011-03-10T17:43:00.006-06:00

I was thinking about Milo today. It's not unusual, but for the first time, I felt like I could say something coherent about or to Milo. I didn't realize it would have been his 57th birthday today.

Before long it will be a year since I tried to reach Milo by phone and by email, over and over, for more than a week. I knew he'd be traveling and I didn't expect to hear from him for a few days. I had a gift (a book about his favorite creatures--cats) to get into the mail for him, but I'd lost his mailing address so I emailed. He didn't respond but I assumed he was on the road. I called and left a message. For over a week I emailed again, called again, and as you can see I posted here, too. When his voice mail box filled up I found someone, through myspace, I believed knew him, and asked if she could organize a health and welfare check. His closest friend has just passed away, and he was working very hard so, at first, his lack of response seemed due to his work load and stress level. Now I was worried. By the time I called her I'd found an old envelope in the "recycling stack" with his address so I gave it to her and started calling local hospitals while she went to his home.

She called and said his car was in the driveway, but he did not answer and the police were going to break in. I prepared myself, as much as one can, but I still fell apart when she called back to confirm they had found him. Sadly, several of his cats did not survive. They might have if I had called earlier, but how was I to know? His closest friend had just died, and he'd been out of touch with most everyone else lately--I was the only one who noticed. I find it very sad that no one else noticed, but very glad that I did. I'm honored that I was close enough to him in the end, that he shared some very important things with me. Sadly, since I don't know how to contact his surviving relatives (his parents both passed away in recent years and he had no siblings) the secrets I know--those that they should know, too--will never find their way to them.

Ronni came over and, along with my husband, we drank a few toasts to him. We presented her with the cat book my husband had found to send to him, and we shared a few stories. It was strange to memorialize a man we were so close to in spirit, but had never met. Because of his pets, he could never get away long enough to come visit us in Texas, and we were never able to get away from work long enough to go to Kansas.

I learned later--when his ex contacted me--that he had died from a congenital heart defect. A coroner told her that much. She was quite certain that he never knew he had it, and I'm certain she's right.

What's my point? I guess that we miss him, we loved him, and we're so very glad we met him. He had a great love for his country and for all Americans, and it hurt him deeply to see what has happened to the middle class in America, to the educational system in America, and to civil rights for all Americans. I wish he were still here teaching and speaking out, but in a way, I'm glad he is not here to see what is happening to his beloved America. If he'd been here last night witnessing what the GOP has done to teachers and other public workers in Wisconsin, it probably would have killed him.

At least now, I know he died in his sleep, not watching television coverage of the descent of America.

2010-10-10T19:29:00.003-05:00

Don't Stop Believin'

2010-05-14T13:55:00.004-05:00

This one's for Milo.

What's the Matter with Greece?

2010-05-13T22:23:00.002-05:00

"Dany le Vert" (formerly "Dany le Rouge")
Eurodeputy Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens/EFA) challenges the European Commission and Parliament about their stance on financial support for Greece.

In spite of what I consider a rather "checkered" past, he makes some very good points.

ET Phone Home

2010-05-12T01:02:00.001-05:00

The kids miss you, phone home, please.

farewell

2010-04-29T16:20:00.002-05:00

RIP Johnny Lee Phelps - 3-8-51 to 4-29-10

I will miss you, my friend.

drill, baby drill

2010-04-22T18:08:00.001-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/22/oil.rig.explosion/?hpt=T1

...time to scrub some otters.

that left a whole bunch of marks

2010-04-20T22:13:00.001-05:00

I guess Bernie Goldberg didn't read my "I hope I never never ever piss off Jon Stewart" post. That's what happens when the FOX thinks it can fight the hounds.

the evidence was tainted...

2010-04-20T14:39:00.002-05:00

Fun times in the Georgia state government, tin-foil hats are optional:

"Ma'am, did you say you have a microchip?" state Rep. Tom Weldon (R) asked the woman.

"Yes, I do. This microchip was put in my vaginal-rectum area," she replied.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/ga-lawmakers-hear-testimony-from-woman-claiming-dod-implanted-a-microchip-inside-her.php?ref=fpblg

judicial scoundrels

2010-04-20T11:53:00.003-05:00

News is that the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in its eternal wisdom, has at long last legalized snuff films.

I may just be a teabagger after all, because I WANT MY FUCKING COUNTRY BACK.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J3IO20100420

green power

2010-04-20T00:01:00.001-05:00

funnier shit

2010-04-19T23:24:00.000-05:00

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/laf/1698812779.html

I bet this won't be on his resume...

funny shit

2010-04-19T19:01:00.002-05:00

So Lindsay "Huckleberry" Graham has been accused by a speaker at a Tea Party of selling out to Obama because the Democrats are blackmailing him over his closeted homosexuality. The Tea Party "infiltration" bit from last week has made people who are by nature paranoid and suspicious even more so, to the point where they are biting each other like a school of hungry piranhas. As soon as a Tea Party attendee shows any deviation from the herd's positions, they are attacked and accused of being an imposter and a plant. I have been saying for years that this was the natural ultimate outcome of the right-wing authoritarian mindset and that once it starts rolling, they will kill each other off until the final battle for ultimate purity. Modern "conservatism" is like the Highlander - "there can be only one." Make some popcorn, get a Big Gulp, and sit back and enjoy the show.

Nut Gobblers, er, Tea Baggers of the USA, leeeeeeeeeeet's get ready to ruuuuumblllllle!!!

dumbass headline of the day

2010-04-19T16:44:00.009-05:00

"Have Modern Scientists Made Any Advancements In Alchemy?"

First of all, the article has nothing to do with transmuting one element into another, only the modification of a compound's physical properties by altering its molecular weight.

Second, we modern scientists are too fucking busy right now trying to figure out why astrology leaves out Ophiucus, the thirteenth constellation of the Zodiac.

"Sceintists."
This country is doomed.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/have-modern-sceintests-made-any-advancements-alchemy

something a little lighter!

2010-04-19T12:55:00.001-05:00

I found the Silly One's family!

http://www.highlandtiger.com/

history will be made

2010-04-19T11:20:00.003-05:00

On Thursday, President Obama will travel to New York and give a televised speech about the need for new financial regulation, the economic difficulties that abound in the nation, and the obstructionism of the right.

He will be speaking at Cooper Union.

Knowing the president's affinity for Abraham Lincoln, there can be little doubt that this may be the most impassioned speech he will ever give, and one that will finally give notice to the seditious and secessionist movement that has been growing in strength since he took office. The symbolism of the location where he will be speaking can not be minimized.

Here's what, for me, is the single greatest political speech ever given. May President Obama have the vigor of intellect and the courage and commitment to make it the second greatest.

Mr. President and fellow citizens of New York:

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in "The New-York Times," Senator Douglas said:

"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?"

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better than we do now?"

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it - how they expressed that better understanding?

In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four - James M'Henry - voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition - thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded territory. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so bought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it - take control of it - in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves, was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine" - Rufus King and Charles Pinckney - were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20 - there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of them - a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" - so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris - while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, that all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution - the identical Congress which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre- eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories.

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we - better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience - to reject all progress - all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" were of the same opinion - thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask - all Republicans desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.

And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling - that sentiment - by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there - "distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else - "expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" - and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due," - as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this, is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live" - the men who made the Constitution - decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago - decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

- President Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860

what the fuck?

2010-04-18T14:07:00.002-05:00

I don't know how to describe this, much less how to explain it:

http://la-gun.com/manning/

more ons

2010-04-15T15:04:00.002-05:00

Dumbass headline of the day:

"Mysterious Fireball Lights Up Sky Above Six Midwestern States"

It wasn't mysterious. It was a fucking rock. It happens all the damned time.

signs

2010-04-14T19:21:00.002-05:00

Here's some ideas:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/

And remember, they hate being referred to as "teabaggers" so be a devout teabagger. Say it loud and say it proud!

moebius

2010-04-14T12:48:00.002-05:00

The things you find online when you type in a random URL just out of curiosity:

http://www.wwwdotcom.com/

if you can't join 'em, beat 'em!

2010-04-13T12:59:00.001-05:00

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-man-how-a-prankster-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php?ref=fpblg

Fucking brilliant. I'm ashamed I didn't think of it.

of course, of course

2010-04-13T03:03:00.003-05:00

The blogworld is all atwitter over the revelation that New York Teabagger Party candidate for Governor, Carl Paladino, sent dozens of mass emails featuring racial slurs, sexual jokes, and pornographic images and links to his supporters. His campaign manager, one Michael Caputo, said that Democrats were trying to shift the focus of the campaign from the issues facing New York state to "having sex with horses."

I have to admit, he's got a point. I mean, be honest, who here hasn't forwarded pictures of a girl blowing a horse to their friends?

Rhodes Scholar?

2010-04-13T01:59:00.002-05:00

I don't know which is more embarrassing, that Rachel Maddow said the two current but different height measurements of Mt. Everest by the countries that share it were 20,029 feet and 20,035 feet whereas the official GPS measurements by US experts showed Everest at 29,036 feet and that she either didn't notice the nine thousand foot discrepancy or did notice it but didn't think it incredibly unlikely and recognize it as a typo long before she went on the air with it. No matter which way you go, it doesn't speak well of the collective preparation and editing of the show to let something like that sneak through. MSNBC seems more like FOX every day.

briar patch?

2010-04-09T20:00:00.003-05:00

I'm beginning to wonder if Keith Olbermann is trying to get fired. He has missed work much of the last six months and has said lots of things that are embarrassing to his employer on the days that he has worked. I figured a good portion of this was due to family issues and I have no grudge for his seeing to his personal affairs, but I'm surprised that his employer continues to pay a couple of million dollars a year for his efforts. Now he's taken to reading stories by a famous American literary figure, something that really doesn't have anything to do with mission of the network, and for which advertisers pay lots of money. It's getting totally surreal and feels like watching "Weekend Update" with Leonard Plinth Darnell as guest host.

he must be a musician at heart

2010-04-09T19:40:00.004-05:00

Congressman Bart Stupak has officially announced he will be leaving office and will not run for re-election at the end of his term. His stated reason was that he had "accomplished the goal" that he had entered government for eighteen years ago. I must admit, even I am impressed at his amazing achievement.

After all, Bart Stupak fucked every single woman in the United States of America this year.

one of these things is just like the other

2010-04-09T16:21:00.003-05:00

The DOW broke 11,000 today for the first time since the Bush administration. Crude oil prices are the highest they have been since the summer of hell a couple of years ago, and local gasoline prices are a whisker away from three dollars per gallon. At this rate, we'll be bailing Wall Street out again in two years.

I'm liking the idea of bringing back the guillotine more every day.

don't tell me she doesn't have a mirror

2010-04-09T12:48:00.005-05:00

So former half-term governor of Alaska Sarah Palin is out on the stump criticizing President Obama for his "lack of accomplishments."

Wow. This walking slam book of a failed beauty pageant contestant, amateurish TV personality, mayor of the biggest meth lab in Alaska, who fled from the governor's office pursued by yet-unresolved ethics problems only to be beaten like a rented mule as vice-presidential nominee, this is who says Barack Obama lacks accomplishments.

I really can't add to the humor of this situation.

"soul default swaps"

2010-04-06T22:18:00.002-05:00

I suspect that John McCain may never appear on "The Daily Show" again. And I hope that I have the good fortune to never, ever, ever piss off Jon Stewart.

simple question

2010-04-05T19:01:00.002-05:00

If Michael Steele is being held to a higher standard because he's black, how does he account for the fact that he is still in the leadership position for the RNC despite the recent field trip to the sapphic bondage club that's still echoing around the media? Shouldn't he have been escorted out the door instead?

sick at heart

2010-04-05T13:46:00.002-05:00

These murders are being done in our name with our money. If we do not stop this soon, the world will rise as one as our enemy. How far we've come in sixty-five years. That anyone could watch this and not be disgusted by the actions of our government is beyond my capacity to understand.

We are a criminal country.

Man O' Krug

2010-04-04T22:41:00.001-05:00

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/alan-greenspan-still-not-a-mensch/

"Back to the housing bubble: Greenspan’s whole defense now is that nobody saw it. But there were an awful lot of nobodies — Dean Baker, Bob Shiller, Calculated Risk, and yes, yours truly. What’s probably true is that nobody Greenspan talked to regularly saw it. And you know why? Because Greenspan insulated himself from people who told him what he didn’t want to hear.

And here he is, still lecturing us on responsible policy."

Yep.

Yeah, I got the plan from ACME. Why?

2010-04-02T17:46:00.002-05:00

USS Farragut, DDG-99

come fly with me!

2010-04-02T15:56:00.000-05:00

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhHLaL4b5sI8HfeSe6lavRFlQ5kwD9ER50EG1

goodbye, Charlie

2010-04-02T14:30:00.002-05:00

RIP John Forsythe.

random observation

2010-04-01T19:16:00.002-05:00

I've known a lot of gay people through my life, and I've always been impressed at how extraordinarily matter-of-fact gay women were about matters relating to sex and sexuality. At least I was until I became familiar with Rachel Maddow, who responds to discussing sex with squirmy discomfort and stuttering, red-faced squeamishness.

If she was any more like a ten-year-old boy, she would be blowing Catholic priests.

the farts weren't dubbed in...

2010-04-01T18:12:00.001-05:00

The Hooty-hoot Militia made a movie. It seems to prove they were on quack.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/scar_my_tattered_body_no_more_with_your_punishing.php?ref=fpblg

justice prevails

2010-04-01T16:19:00.023-05:00

Political assassin Scott Roeder just gave a pre-sentencing speech, and I now feel like I need to take a shower and swab my ears with toilet paper and bleach. Mr. Roeder reads in a halting and hesitant manner, exhibiting the literacy of a low-achieving twelve-year-old trying to read an encyclopedia. He constantly rubbed his right hand up and down his right thigh like the sweaty child molester at the beginning of "Devil's Advocate."

It was clear from his reading of this lengthy manifesto that he did not write it. He stumbled over every fourth or fifth word, and one telling moment was when he used the word "object" in the context of "disagree" and pronounced it as though he was talking about an item on the desk before him. The diatribe was studded with literally hundreds of biblical quotes, which Mr. Roeder was using in an attempt to justify his disregard for the law of the land. He complained that he was not able to use his biblical precepts as a defense against his violation of civic law, and seemed to feel that if he had been able to do so that jury nullification would have set him free to be carried on the shoulders of his supporters in celebration.

He harangued the judge for essentially presiding over a kangaroo court. He claimed in so many words that if the government chose to disregard the teachings of his religion that he then had the right to take the law into his own hands. He called for the removal of Nola Foulston, District Attorney for Sedgwick County, for not upholding biblical standards in the execution of her duties. The entire time, his attorneys were fidgeting, looking the other way, leaning as far away from their client as they could, and showing every indication that they just wanted their client to shut up and quit insulting the court. The most chilling moment for me was when Mr. Roeder said, in the time-honored manner of wife-beaters around the world:

"The blame for George Tiller's death lies more with the state of Kansas than it does with me."

After about forty-five minutes of this disconnected rant, the judge interrupted to explain that Mr. Roeder's speaking time was for the purpose of explaining why he should receive the lightest sentencing possible and that this was not a forum for him to get on a soapbox and espouse his political beliefs. After conferring with his attorneys for several minutes, the lead attorney tried to explain why this statement was relevant to the sentencing, but the judge had no sympathy for that line of argument, saying that Roeder was not going to be permitted to follow the assassination of Dr. Tiller with the political and character assassination of District Attorney Foulston.

Roeder harshly criticized the judge and finally, one of his attorneys stopped him, and before they cut off the microphone, could be heard saying "stop it, I want you to know this is the last shot, your last chance..." and when the audio continued, the prosecution approached the bench with the book of statutes for court proceedings and stated to the court that Roeder was mounting a defense and trying to relitigate the matter before the court. The defense team then also approached the bench for one of those famous sidebar moments. With the patience of Job (yes, that was a gratuitous biblical reference from the atheist blogger) the judge let the off-mic debate continue for fifteen minutes, then told Mr. Roeder that his dissatisfaction was noted but that the arguments were irrelevant.

Roeder then tried to explain that he didn't deserve the Hard Fifty sentence allowed under statute because Dr. Tiller didn't know Roeder was stalking him and therefore suffered no fear before being brutally murdered. The judge read the sentencing guidelines to Roeder and notified him that argument wasn't going to be allowed. Roeder once again conferred with his attorneys. The judge then said that it was already past time for the court to close, but that he was going to finish this matter today. He then once again explained that this was only time for Roeder to present factors that would mitigate his sentence and that they would not be re-litigating the case because that part of the procedure was finished.

Roeder then went on to excoriate Tiller's church as a satanic enclave and once again the judge stopped him, saying he would not permit a political diatribe in a sentencing hearing. Roeder said he understood, and then said he wanted to read a statement to "all pregnant women," and the judge, with a sense of exasperation, tried to explain to Roeder that this was completely irrelevant to the sentencing matter before the court.

Roeder then tried to put the court on trial, and started slandering the District Attorney again. The judge stopped him again and Roeder finally summed up his speech with "twenty-five years for 'protecting life' or fifty years for 'protecting life?'" Roeder's attorneys then made their case for mitigation, the lack of prior criminal history of their client, and that a physician determined that the capacity of Roeder to understand the criminality of his conduct was impaired. The defense requested concurrent sentences totalling twenty-five years for Mr. Roeder.

Prosecution stated there were no mitigating factors because while Mr. Roeder had no history of criminal offenses, he had a long history of criminal activities, including stalking, premeditation, vandalism, and many more. Regarding capacity, the prosecution said he clearly made the decision to do this based upon his beliefs, and that because of those beliefs he did not respect the notion that civic society had any authority over him. Roeder interrupted, and once again, and with more exasperation the court explained that Roeder had his chance and now it was the prosecution's turn.

The court explained its understanding of statutes regarding lack of mental capacity as being designed for people who could not distinguish what was legal, and that in Roeder's case, the lack of capacity was only explained by his chosen belief system, not an inability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Judge Wilder said explicitly that the aggravating factors far outweighed the mitigating factors. Roeder repeatedly interrupted and was ignored, except for being told by the bailiff that he must be silent. By this point the aisles in the court were occupied by at least a half-dozen armed police officers standing about three feet apart.

Then came the money shot.

"The court will find that there are no mitigating factors that outweigh the aggravating factors..." was how Judge Wilder began as he imposed the Hard Fifty plus an additional two years for aggravating factors, a total of fifty-two years with no parole on this human compost heap. Even BTK was ashamed of his actions. Roeder was led out, shouting insults at the court and the prosecution. This entire affair took two hours from start to end, ending just before 6:00 PM local time.

Be advised, christianists. The authority of your belief stops where your skin does. You have no right to try to impose your belief on the citizens of this country. I'm a strong opponent of the death penalty, but this rabid dog really needs to be put down. He should consider himself fortunate.

He's a lot luckier than Dr. George Tiller was.

Blogspot humor

2010-04-01T15:32:00.002-05:00

thumbs up!

2010-04-01T05:24:00.002-05:00

I just finished watching a most remarkable movie that I had never heard of until I saw it listed in the channel guide earlier this evening. It's called "Einstein and Eddington" and I say with no exaggeration that it is the best nerd movie I have ever seen, and is nothing less than "Amadeus" for physicists and science buffs.

Bravo to the brave souls who took the huge leap of producing this film, it was never destined to be a blockbuster but it really deserved to be made. I think history will be very kind to it.

too much of a good thing?

2010-04-01T04:10:00.002-05:00

I just caught a latenight television ad for "new EXTENZE for women!"

I sure hope they aren't thinking making it bigger is going to be much of a selling point.

ducks in a barrel

2010-03-30T12:30:00.004-05:00

"Palin's remarks focused mainly on Sen. Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and President Obama, the latter of whom was the opponent of the McCain-Palin ticket in the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin beckoned to two familiar phrases from the Obama-Biden campaign.

'That bumper sticker that maybe you'll see on the next Subaru driving by -- an Obama bumper sticker -- you should stop the driver and say, 'So how is that hopey, changey thing working out for ya?'"

---Not so bad, actually. How's that Dopey, Cheney thing working out for you?

the empress has new clothes

2010-03-29T14:48:00.001-05:00

Wonder how much McCain had to pay for this Nazi Ninja costume...

that Maverick's got a lot of miles on it

2010-03-26T14:54:00.004-05:00

Sarah Palin:

"Fidel Castro likes Obamacare, and we don't like Obamacare, doesn't that tell ya somethin'?"

Yes, it does. It tells me you're not even as smart as Fidel Castro.

trust fall

2010-03-26T00:16:00.002-05:00

Catholic priest Lawrence Murphy molested two hundred deaf boys placed in his trust and under his supervision. Asked for comment, Murphy reportedly said: "DEAF? No wonder. Dammit, I thought they were MUTES!"

Either way, never trust anyone just because of what they say or what their job is.

happy birthday, Madame Speaker!

2010-03-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

And thanks for your service to this country.

treasonous weasel

2010-03-25T12:45:00.005-05:00

John McCain, you need to shut up, leave Congress, and permanently remove yourself from this planet. You are a liar, a coward, and a traitor. You betrayed your country and sold out your fellow servicemen by collaborating with the enemy while incarcerated as a prisoner of war, you ran for the presidency with no purpose other than fame and glory, and foisted the most unqualified and unprepared person you could find upon us as your choice for vice president. Your recent pledge to do nothing to help the people of the United States as long as the Democratic party is in the driver's seat shows once again that you only care about yourself.

It's time for you to go into your private office, put the gun to your head, and pull the trigger. Don't bother with a note, it would be more self-serving bullshit. Enough is enough. It is time for you to atone for your shame by, for once in your life, doing the honorable thing.

road of clap

2010-03-25T01:03:00.003-05:00

This is why I don't waste time on the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-you-only-live-once-exp_b_508440.html

Sun Two

2010-03-24T03:50:00.002-05:00

A couple posts ago I mentioned how brilliant I thought the tactics that the president employed to get a victory on health care were, and after little more consideration it occurs to me that the strategy itself was intensely focused and was the other necessary ingredient for him to succeed where others have failed for decades. Instead of trying to come up with a workable plan for a complex socialized health care system, it looks like Mr. Obama zeroed in on one single essential element and singlemindedly pursued it as the key that would unlock everything else.

The president chose to legally elevate health care to a right of existence rather than a privilege of wealth and power. That simple fact is the fulcrum to slowly modify the clumsy opening framework of federal mandates and corporate insurance. It would have been impossible to engineer a functional healthcare system in one fell swoop, not because we couldn't have simply established Medicare for all, but because society itself is unfortunately too fragmented and fragile to survive such a monumental change all at once.

By simply creating a right to health care rather than a national health care system, it will be almost impossible to undo this legislation. Putting all of the moving parts together will take time anyway, and the distraction caused by the creation of a massive national bureaucracy from whole cloth would have made it difficult to pass such a cultural transformation.

Once again, I have no choice but to admit that I'm impressed at how targeting the crucial strategy and the crucial tactic out of the myriad choices in the battle for healthcare permitted our president to produce change equal to or greater in importance than emancipation, women's suffrage, Social Security, civil rights, and Medicare.

Bravo, Mr. President. If you left office tomorrow your legacy would still place you in the top ten of our nation's leaders, which is pretty good company. And to the rest of the world, take heed. The man that is in charge of the United States now is dangerously smart and knows how to only fight battles he wins. We're in good hands again and we're nobody's fools any more.

the REAL Al Franken decade

2010-03-23T18:55:00.001-05:00

Attaboy, Junior Senator from Minnesota:

http://www.businessinsider.com/al-franken-gets-alleged-kbr-rape-victim-her-day-in-court-2010-3

Son of Tzu

2010-03-23T18:20:00.003-05:00

I've been watching all of the post-game punditry about our brand new Health Care Reform, and I suddenly grasped how these victories are coming, despite seeming massive odds against them. Instead of going head-on into open warfare against the Nutzi Party as a caricatureable, flaming bleeding-heart, effete, elitist, revolutionary black liberal, President Obama realized that the overboard extremism of the opposing party is a huge gap in their armor and is going around their flanks to attack them from the unassailable bastion of their own previous positions, demonstrating it in tactics like virtually copying the Romney/Massachusetts health system and installing it on a national level. He is pulling the center back to the left incrementally without any figurative bloodshed and keeping the high ground of the debate firmly on his own side at the same time.

Thank you, sensei. The best lesson is the one you teach yourself.

permit me to explain

2010-03-23T13:08:00.004-05:00

The loser party is increasing the volume of their whining about America's new health care reform legislation. One of their familiar talking points is that making health care a right rather than being a traditional privilege of the wealthy and powerful is that it is going to inevitably lead to "rationing" of health care in the United States.

Well, losers, here's the deal.

Even if that was the case it might be "rationing" for you assholes, but for the rest of us it means "sharing" and the simple fact that we might actually GET SOME FUCKING HEALTH CARE.

ignominy and irrelevance

2010-03-23T12:37:00.004-05:00

...gave a press conference today after President Obama signed Health Care Reform into law.

And yes, Joe, it's a "big fucking deal!" Thanks for stating it in plain English!

the republican response to health care

2010-03-23T12:27:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

poetry

2010-03-22T14:03:00.001-05:00

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

I'm hopeful that this may be an educable moment, but experience says it won't be.

Thank you, President Obama

2010-03-22T00:12:00.003-05:00

You may be saving my friend's life, and possibly even mine.

heroes

2010-03-21T22:47:00.003-05:00

The United States of America just became more civilized.

sanctimony is orange

2010-03-21T21:14:00.001-05:00

today's the day

2010-03-21T10:54:00.000-05:00

Overture, curtains, lights,
This is it, the night of nights
No more rehearsing and nursing a part
We know every part by heart
Overture, curtains, lights
This is it, you'll hit the heights
And oh what heights we'll hit
On with the show this is it

Tonight what heights we'll hit
On with the show this is it!

and speaking of happy...

2010-03-21T00:01:00.000-05:00

Happy Day of Planetaria! Go see a starshow today, preferably at a modern digital installation. It's an experience you won't forget and you will almost certainly go see another one this year if you do.

speaking of sunshine

2010-03-20T19:17:00.002-05:00

Happy first day of Spring from Kansas!

rays of sunshine

2010-03-20T15:53:00.002-05:00

I was just reading an old post on another blog that referenced a quote from evil clown Robert Novak, and I cringed.

Then I remembered that Robert Novak was dead, and I smiled.

gonna go party with Peter

2010-03-18T16:25:00.002-05:00

RIP Fess Parker. I expect a resurgence of the coonskin cap.

okay, one more

2010-03-18T00:12:00.003-05:00

And what's all this fuss about "demon pass" rules? Shouldn't those demons drive the same way as the rest of us?

Oh.

Never mind.

for Emily

2010-03-17T22:22:00.002-05:00

Happy St. Patrick's Day to our Irish president, Brock O'Bama!

...never mind.

good news!

2010-03-16T14:10:00.002-05:00

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHealthNews/heart-patients-erectile-dysfunction-double-risk-death/story?id=10108622

It seems I don't have to worry about my cardiac health. No congratulations are necessary...

corollary

2010-03-16T00:32:00.002-05:00

It looks like some time in the next week our Congress will vote on whether to provide basic medical care to the citizens of this country as a fundamental part of civil rights.

When you think about it, we are going to find out the answer to an important and largely unspoken question.

In a land where businesses can be pronounced "too big to fail" and receive enormous amounts of taxpayer-financed largesse to rescue them from their own malfeasance, are the country's political leaders going to take the official stance that our fellow citizens are "too small to matter?"

enough time for another gram, right, Andrew?

2010-03-15T13:12:00.007-05:00

I guess I'm not the only one waiting for the big not-so-Breitbart revelation that is going to bury the liberal movement in this country once and for all:

http://institutionalleftdoomsdayclock.com/

oh, my god - really.

2010-03-14T23:20:00.001-05:00

http://www.churchofthesmilingvagina.com

I should be Pope.

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

2010-03-14T20:24:00.001-05:00

Goodbye, Mr. Phelps.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/14/actor-peter-graves-dies/?hpt=T2

imagine that

2010-03-14T14:59:00.004-05:00

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-14/toyota-u-s-can-t-replicate-prius-acceleration-report-says.html

It just gets better:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575122000750517056.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

...and better:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/toyota-autos-hoax-media-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html?boxes=Homepagetoprated

it's all going down

2010-03-14T14:33:00.002-05:00

On February 22, crazy conservative cokehead Andrew Breitbart, in a taped exchange at the CPAC "conference," told Max Blumenthal that "in three weeks" he would be releasing news that would destroy the Democrats, destroy Obama, destroy the Congress, and would take down the entire left of the United States of America.

It's now been three weeks. I suppose we all may as well kill ourselves now so we don't have to face the debacle, because the shit's goin' down real soon.

After all, we know the guy that brought us the fake pimp and hooker story has enormous credibility.

I kid you not

2010-03-13T02:16:00.002-06:00

Pop singer Michelle Branch just posted this MySpace comment:

"Just took a dump so big it was based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire."

Well alrighty, then.

he has risen

2010-03-13T02:13:00.001-06:00

deja vu

2010-03-12T14:04:00.002-06:00

Watching MSNBC in the afternoon is exactly like listening in on the catty, mean-girl cheerleader Heathers as they sit together at their special table in the high-school lunchroom and gossip about all of the other people that don't meet their superficial standards, with the woefully stupid jocks wandering in every so often to offer some moronic non-sequiturs.

We really are doomed.

cutting-edge research discovery

2010-03-10T18:02:00.001-06:00

http://www.ajc.com/news/researchers-men-want-sex-361309.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746

I wonder how long it took to solve this mystery.

Progressive blogger targeted by Beck

2010-03-10T17:55:00.000-06:00

looks like a duck to me

2010-03-10T11:19:00.002-06:00

For the last few weeks, there has been incessant bashing of Toyota Motors. Despite the fact that incidents with Toyotas have been few and far between and that Toyota immediately offered fixes for problems they were being criticized for, our unreliable and often incoherent media has been beating the anti-Toyota drum long and loud. At this point, I can't help but think that there is a deliberate effort to discredit Toyota in order to steer american buyers to Ford and GM vehicles to try to keep these two wretched companies afloat. What puzzles me the most is that Ford and GM are in position they are in because for the last thirty-odd years, american car manufacturers have been putting out products that have all of the build quality and reliability of a 1978 Yugo. I own a Toyota and it is the most reliable and best-constructed vehicle I have ever had. I've also had five Fords in the last twenty years (all purchased new) and their build quality left something to be desired and without exception, the Fords all developed problems that included mysterious electrical problems as well as cylinder head and valve problems that were costly to repair out of warranty.

If our government and our media have any ulterior motives for this nonstop lynch-mob mentality and actually are trying to prop up american companies despite their lack of quality, let's give them all Ford Pintos to drive and see how they feel about Toyota then.

sad assclown

2010-03-09T19:09:00.003-06:00

Shorter Glenn Beck to Eric Massa:

"Show me on the doll where Rahm touched you. PLEEEASE SHOW ME! NOW!"

the things I have to put up with

2010-03-08T16:33:00.001-06:00

can't believe this didn't get a "best actor"

2010-03-08T01:03:00.000-06:00

the rest of the story

2010-03-03T05:27:00.002-06:00

While Dick Cheney was recovering from the latest unsuccessful secession attempt by his heart, George W. Bush visited him in the hospital. It was apparently the first time the two have seen each other since the inauguration ceremony. Catching up on news, Bush told Cheney that he had spent the last year working on his new book.

I wonder if he stayed inside the lines.

iBlog

2010-03-02T16:35:00.003-06:00

In 1985, if anybody had told me that I would never want to hear Christie Brinkley orgasmically gasping "ohhh, it's fanTAStic!" again, I would have questioned their sanity.

crust on a chritch

2010-02-26T14:55:00.002-06:00

Read this and try not to vomit:

"Con artists have a word for the inability of their victims to accept that they've been scammed. They call it the "True Believer Syndrome." That's sort of where we are, in a state of nagging disbelief about the real problem on Wall Street. It isn't so much that we have inadequate rules or incompetent regulators, although both of these things are certainly true. The real problem is that it doesn't matter what regulations are in place if the people running the economy are rip-off artists. The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn't going to work, no matter what we do. Sure, mugging old ladies is against the law, but it's also easy. To prevent it, we depend, for the most part, not on cops but on people making the conscious decision not to do it.

That's why the biggest gift the bankers got in the bailout was not fiscal but psychological. "The most valuable part of the bailout," says Rep. Sherman, "was the implicit guarantee that they're Too Big to Fail." Instead of liquidating and prosecuting the insolvent institutions that took us all down with them in a giant Ponzi scheme, we have showered them with money and guarantees and all sorts of other enabling gestures. And what should really freak everyone out is the fact that Wall Street immediately started skimming off its own rescue money. If the bailouts validated anew the crooked psychology of the bubble, the recent profit and bonus numbers show that the same psychology is back, thriving, and looking for new disasters to create. "It's evidence," says Rep. Kanjorski, "that they still don't get it."

More to the point, the fact that we haven't done much of anything to change the rules and behavior of Wall Street shows that we still don't get it. Instituting a bailout policy that stressed recapitalizing bad banks was like the addict coming back to the con man to get his lost money back. Ask yourself how well that ever works out."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32255149/wall_streets_bailout_hustle/print

Pass the Popcorn

2010-02-23T20:08:00.002-06:00

Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for the great opening tonight, showing the "flip-flopping" of the GOP (especially John Boehner) over what they REALLY want in the health care debate.

a rift in the spacetime continuum

2010-02-22T11:48:00.003-06:00

Ross Douthat is the Bizarro Seth McFarlane. And a douche.

stupid internet

2010-02-22T04:43:00.003-06:00

The headline on Google News said "Hilary Duff shows off her sparkler!"

Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a ring.

burning bright

2010-02-19T17:20:00.004-06:00

The media is all abuzz because Tiger Woods came out of hiding today to abjectly plead for forgiveness and assure everyone he's so sorry about what happened and how he just wants to get back to living his life, playing golf, and making a living.

I'd be a lot more impressed if he had stood at the podium and said "you know what, who I fuck and how I fuck them is none of your business, this is all between me and my family, and if you don't like it, go fuck yourselves because I'm already a billionaire and I don't need to prostrate myself so you bunch of hypocritical pantysniffers can feel superior to someone. Fuck you all."

Soylent Green is now

2010-02-18T21:07:00.000-06:00

http://www.theplaceswelive.com/

but he's a great cop

2010-02-18T11:57:00.003-06:00

Bernie Kerik is going to go to jail for four years for perjury and tax fraud. It's good he has some practice being tenderly held by men from behind.

must-click

2010-02-15T14:40:00.002-06:00

http://www.koolass.com/palin.html

The biggest reason I think she will never win the presidency is that over the last couple of years, what little bloom there was left on this rose has disappeared. Her personal travails and continuing battles in the press are taking their toll, and she will not be able to rely on what sex appeal she may have had to her followers to fancy-pageant-walk her way into the White House.

Enron was just the dry run

2010-02-15T14:08:00.001-06:00

These fuckers need to be hanged or sent to the guillotine, and I don't mean that figuratively:

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/02/14/goldman-goes-rogue-%E2%80%93-special-european-audit-to-follow/

the Bush presidency...

2010-02-15T14:05:00.001-06:00

...described before it began. Lots of us were right the whole damned time. All hail the Man O' Krug.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/01/opinion/reckonings-bait-and-switch.html?scp=13&sq=krugman%20shape%20planet%20bush&st=cse

not cool

2010-02-09T23:05:00.003-06:00

Stupid move. I really can't help but think that the president unexpectedly interrupted the news conference just to stop this act of idiocy. It's one thing for people like me, at the bottom of the heap, to reach up and slap Palin for her dim-wittedness, but it's another thing entirely for the man who speaks for the President of the United States of America to publicly humiliate a dangerously popular woman from the official podium. Gibbs must apologize abjectly and immediately, and even then this moment will never go away. All that can be done now is to eat the wrong in public and hope it blows over.

hello my ragtime doll...

2010-02-05T12:46:00.001-06:00

GUILTY

2010-01-29T18:32:00.001-06:00

Kansas finally gets one right. Reports say it took thirty-seven minutes of deliberation. I bet they took a half-hour of that time to eat a nice relaxed breakfast.

No death penalty, please, that would let him off way too easily and turn him into a martyr for the panty-sniffers. Let him live in a ten-foot cell for the rest of his life.

permit me to help

2010-01-28T18:58:00.005-06:00

I've been watching the reporting on President Obama's first State of the Union address last night, and without exception, the right has been up in arms at how "churlish," "presumptuous," "arrogant," and "rude" he was for chiding the Supreme Court for their sell-out decision on campaign financing and for publicly calling out the republicans as the obstructionist dicks they have been for the last year.

Guys, I think the word you are looking for is "uppity."

that's a victory

2010-01-28T18:03:00.002-06:00

The judge presiding over the Scott Roeder trial, the man who assassinated Dr. George Tiller in the lobby of his church, has just ruled that the jury may only consider first degree murder charges and that Roeder may not use any kind of "justifiable homicide" defense based upon Tiller's providing abortion services as part of his women's healthcare clinic.

Buh-bye, Scott.

good luck with that, guys

2010-01-28T14:01:00.003-06:00

So it looks like the four right-wing clowns that infiltrated Senator Mary Landrieu's office are claiming that they weren't trying to wiretap her phone, they were just trying to disable it.

It should be fun watching their lawyers try to convince a federal court that sabotageing a federal telephone system is a lesser offense than wiretapping one.

I hope they get ACORNholed in jail.