flail doyou ?

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Wait, what?

In other news, I saw a bumper sticker today that read:

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Monday, October 18, 2004

So, this is just a little horrifying.
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 US
And 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.
I don't really know what the net effect of this is on the election, but I have to say - elections in America can easily come down to as little as a few thousand votes (or 5, depending on how bitter you want to be about that). When you have a few thousand people potentially making the decision about whether or not one of the most capable military forces in the world believes in pre-emptive overthrow of sovereign states, well, I can see why other nations would feel a bit distressed about not being able to affect the selection process at all.
Wow. Wendy's has the best nutritional information website out there, I'm thinking. It lets you assemble your meal, then delete/add individual toppings, and gives you a total across your whole meal. This is awesome for me, because otherwise I'd have no idea what my Texas double with no meat works out to. (Removing the two patties shaves off 200 calories, it looks like. The Texas double doesn't actually appear on Wendy's site, unfortunately; I don't think it's available outside of Texas. And Wendy's in New Mexico offers packets of green chile sauce.)

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

Saturday, October 09, 2004

There seems to be a great deal of confusion over what Dred Scott meant. Here are some quotes to help you come to a decision on your own. First, the United States Constitution:
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.

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.
Lastly, for easy reference, what Bush claimed:
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.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

copyright 2003 Chris Koeberle

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?