Wednesday, October 27, 2004
In other news, I saw a bumper sticker today that read:
"U CAN'T B BOTH CATHOLIC AND PRO-CHOICE"
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Monday, October 18, 2004
Last week G2 launched Operation Clark County to help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio. In the first three days, more than 11,000 people requested addresses. Here is some of the reaction to the project that we received from the USAnd they go on to share some of the mailbag. Responses seem to bucket into five categories:
- Good idea! Thanks for helping get rid of Bush!
- Bad idea! If you do this, we'll never get rid of Bush!
- Why don't you win a fucking world war before you tell us who to vote for?
- You have bad teeth.
- What you are doing is illegal.
In other fast food news, Chipotle has switched over to a vegetable rennet cheese. It's so weird what a different face they present from McDonald's; they do a really good job of pretending to be an independent operation.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The funny thing is, I'm actually 100% aware of the dangers posed by ESD, and every time I set to working on a computer, I think "You know, I really ought to buy a damned grounding kit. Or at least lock the cat out of the room. Oh well, no time for that - I'll just be sure to touch the case before I do anything." So, yes, I have a bit of a cavalier attitude toward ESD. But I swear, this is a new low for me.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or Duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.("such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is often interpreted to mean "slaves")
No person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.("person held to Service or Labor in one state, under the Laws thereof" is often interpreted to mean "slave")
Finally, Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857):
Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words -- too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.Lastly, for easy reference, what Bush claimed:
Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
BUSH: Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?Except that what they really say is, "Are you for a ban on partial birth abortions worded in a way that the Supreme Court of the United States has already suggested is unconstitutional?" But yeah, apart from that, it's pretty simple.
And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.
I mean, I read through the entire transcript, and generally both candidates seem to be floating a lot of half-truths, which is what you expect in an oral debate, and why I don't like to watch them. But this bit from Bush, coming in this context:
BUSH:I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.How the hell can you be older than 5 and come back with "You voted against it and I voted for it I win forever infinity plus one!"
KERRY: I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.