A few years ago I realized that back in 1775-76 I probably would have been a Loyalist rather than a Rebel ...
Of course at that time in history my ancestors were subjects of His Majesty Gustav III ... So ..
Himself a victim of sedition.
Yes ... My paternal grandfather's name was Gustav ...
A few years ago I realized that back in 1775-76 I probably would have been a Loyalist rather than a Rebel ...
Of course at that time in history my ancestors were subjects of His Majesty Gustav III ... So ..
Himself a victim of sedition.
Yes ... My paternal grandfather's name was Gustav ...
How quickly things go off on a tangent around here.
Under the headlines of the Dustbin of History: a main reason why DJT vetoed the American defense bill was the provision that the military consider renaming some of its bases if they were named for a confederate person. The House has quickly overridden that veto, but Mr. Sanders, Senator from Vermont is threatening to filibuster it in the Senate if McConnell doesn't bring up the bill to increase the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000.
How quickly things go off on a tangent around here.
Under the headlines of the Dustbin of History: a main reason why DJT vetoed the American defense bill was the provision that the military consider renaming some of its bases if they were named for a confederate person. The House has quickly overridden that veto, but Mr. Sanders, Senator from Vermont is threatening to filibuster it in the Senate if McConnell doesn't bring up the bill to increase the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000.
Who said American politics is boring?
Probably the main reason he vetoed the military bill was that it contained an amendment which would force shell corporations to name their owners and clients. Would make laundering money and foreign interference in US politics MUCH more difficult.
I don't know whether the filibuster is now largely a US phenomenon but it's largely disappeared from (Government) business in the UK. It was possible to 'talk out' Government Bills in the House of Commons until the late 19th century, when the Irish Parliamentary Party managed to obstruct almost anything proposed by the Government in retaliation for a lack of progress towards Irish Home Rule. The Commons then introduced a 'guillotine' procedure where a time is set for debate and, if not finished on time, the House then votes to pass the Bill to its next stage.
There is no such procedure in the Lords but, in general, the Lords will eventually agree with the Commons after a few games of ping-pong...
On 'private' business, where Bills are not introduced by Ministers, individual MPs can still filibuster so that Bills they don't like - even those that could command a majority - never get through.
In order to stop Sander's filibuster, the Senate would have to vote for cloture--and that would take 60 votes. McConnell, I think, knows he does not have enough votes for cloture, so bring out the popcorn.
A popular view of the filibuster comes from the classic film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", where it's used to great effect. You can probably watch it on YouTube. (Jimmy Stewart stars.) Worth watching.
Also in "Billy Jack Goes To Washington", which, interestingly, has virtually the same plot--with some martial arts thrown in, though not as much as in a regular Billy Jack film.
The MSGTW version is echoed periodically in other shows/films.
In order to stop Sander's filibuster, the Senate would have to vote for cloture--and that would take 60 votes. McConnell, I think, knows he does not have enough votes for cloture, so bring out the popcorn.
Maybe ... As a peace-making face-saving move, Mitch could ask Judge Merrick Garland to mediate ...
A popular view of the filibuster comes from the classic film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", where it's used to great effect. You can probably watch it on YouTube. (Jimmy Stewart stars.) Worth watching.
Yeah, they got rid of that version of the filibuster in the 1970s. Everyone hated the old style filibusters where someone (or a group of someones working in concert) would speak for hours, reading from the phone book or any other reference material when they ran out of things to say. It made the Senate look ridiculous and ground all other Senate business to a halt. So they instituted the current version which preserves most of the bad things about filibusters (a minority can gridlock any meaningful action, it rewards the Senate's biggest cranks, etc.) while removing all the inconveniences (the Senate looks ridiculous, all other Senate business grinds to a halt, it required a certain amount a physical stamina, etc.) that made filibusters such a rarity in the past. For this reason the filibuster has become a regular occurrence in recent years instead of a relative oddity.
A popular view of the filibuster comes from the classic film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", where it's used to great effect. You can probably watch it on YouTube. (Jimmy Stewart stars.) Worth watching.
Yeah, they got rid of that version of the filibuster in the 1970s. Everyone hated the old style filibusters where someone (or a group of someones working in concert) would speak for hours, reading from the phone book or any other reference material when they ran out of things to say. It made the Senate look ridiculous and ground all other Senate business to a halt. So they instituted the current version which preserves most of the bad things about filibusters (a minority can gridlock any meaningful action, it rewards the Senate's biggest cranks, etc.) while removing all the inconveniences (the Senate looks ridiculous, all other Senate business grinds to a halt, it required a certain amount a physical stamina, etc.) that made filibusters such a rarity in the past. For this reason the filibuster has become a regular occurrence in recent years instead of a relative oddity.
The Founders fully intended The Senate to be a deliberative body relatively shielded from the passing whims and fancies -- and passions -- of the Masses ... unlike the House of Representatives ...
A popular view of the filibuster comes from the classic film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", where it's used to great effect. You can probably watch it on YouTube. (Jimmy Stewart stars.) Worth watching.
Yeah, they got rid of that version of the filibuster in the 1970s. Everyone hated the old style filibusters where someone (or a group of someones working in concert) would speak for hours, reading from the phone book or any other reference material when they ran out of things to say. It made the Senate look ridiculous and ground all other Senate business to a halt. So they instituted the current version which preserves most of the bad things about filibusters (a minority can gridlock any meaningful action, it rewards the Senate's biggest cranks, etc.) while removing all the inconveniences (the Senate looks ridiculous, all other Senate business grinds to a halt, it required a certain amount a physical stamina, etc.) that made filibusters such a rarity in the past. For this reason the filibuster has become a regular occurrence in recent years instead of a relative oddity.
The Founders fully intended The Senate to be a deliberative body relatively shielded from the passing whims and fancies -- and passions -- of the Masses ... unlike the House of Representatives ...
You say that as if the filibuster was a deliberately considered part of the Constitution rather than an accidentally created feature of Senate rules of procedure. I'm getting sick of Constitutional pareidolia, seeing some kind of grand intent by the Framers in what are really accidents of history or ad hoc compromises. Yes, the Framers thought the Senate would be the more deliberative of the two Houses, but they didn't invent the filibuster to insure that.
A popular view of the filibuster comes from the classic film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", where it's used to great effect. You can probably watch it on YouTube. (Jimmy Stewart stars.) Worth watching.
Yeah, they got rid of that version of the filibuster in the 1970s. Everyone hated the old style filibusters where someone (or a group of someones working in concert) would speak for hours, reading from the phone book or any other reference material when they ran out of things to say. It made the Senate look ridiculous and ground all other Senate business to a halt. So they instituted the current version which preserves most of the bad things about filibusters (a minority can gridlock any meaningful action, it rewards the Senate's biggest cranks, etc.) while removing all the inconveniences (the Senate looks ridiculous, all other Senate business grinds to a halt, it required a certain amount a physical stamina, etc.) that made filibusters such a rarity in the past. For this reason the filibuster has become a regular occurrence in recent years instead of a relative oddity.
The Founders fully intended The Senate to be a deliberative body relatively shielded from the passing whims and fancies -- and passions -- of the Masses ... unlike the House of Representatives ...
You say that as if the filibuster was a deliberately considered part of the Constitution rather than an accidentally created feature of Senate rules of procedure. I'm getting sick of Constitutional pareidolia, seeing some kind of grand intent by the Framers in what are really accidents of history or ad hoc compromises. Yes, the Framers thought the Senate would be the more deliberative of the two Houses, but they didn't invent the filibuster to insure that.
I never claimed or indicated that The Founders DID "invent the filibuster" ...
(duh)
But The Founders did intend for The Senate to act more slowly care-fully (rather than quickly precipitously) than The House on things,
and ... the filibuster ... does ... slow ... things ... down ...
I have an odd feeling you are speaking of my ancestors (from France).
If memory serves me right, there is a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square.
And there is a bas-relief of Simon de Montfort in the US House of
Representatives, while he remains unmemorialized in Britain.
And the Disciples of Julian Assange all around the world love to wear Guy Fawkes (1570-1606) masks ...
(Speaking of whom, it will be interesting to see if Emperor Donald I grants Julian a Pardon ... Time's runnin' out ...)
Apparently the last documented widow of a Civil War soldier died last month (16 December 2020).
I realized back in 1999 just how long a human life is, and concurrently, how close we are in time to seemingly ancient people and events ...
At the time I was reading a bio of George Washington, who died in 1799, shortly after his second term ... I reflected on the fact that I would turn 50 in 1999, which meant that I had lived fully one fourth of the time since George W. ...
My Dad -- may he Rest in Peace -- grew up on a farm with horses rather than a tractor ...
My Dad -- may he Rest in Peace -- grew up on a farm with horses rather than a tractor ...
Tractors arrived late to the crofts here. The local museum has photos from the 70s of ploughing done by Clydesdale horses, though a friend of ours has also resurrected her grandfather's tractor (a 70 year old fergie) to work the family croft. About a year ago we saw the passing of an elderly crofter who was, until a few years ago, the last working blacksmith on the island.
Apparently the last documented widow of a Civil War soldier died last month (16 December 2020).
I realized back in 1999 just how long a human life is, and concurrently, how close we are in time to seemingly ancient people and events ...
At the time I was reading a bio of George Washington, who died in 1799, shortly after his second term ... I reflected on the fact that I would turn 50 in 1999, which meant that I had lived fully one fourth of the time since George W. ...
My Dad -- may he Rest in Peace -- grew up on a farm with horses rather than a tractor ...
This is in part because the US concept of Ancient is the rest od the world's definition of recent.
Give the rest of us a break, hmmm? My definition of "ancient" is roughly the same as yours (probably a bit ancient-er, to be honest). Try "Teilhard's concept..."
As another reference point for how recent certain historical events are, John Tyler (the " . . . Tyler, too!" of "Tippicanoe and Tyler, too!") was president from 1841 to 1845 and died in 1862. He still has a living grandson.
I wonder what the Donald J. Trump Presidential "Library" will be like ... ??? ... Where will it be ... ??? ...
We can't erase "History," so we're gonna have to deal somehow ... Whoa, *shudder*, *whew* ...
It took 156 years for a mob under the Confederate Battle Flag to breach the halls of congress.
I have seen all sorts of protests in Washington from the March on Washington, through AntiVietnam Protests, through the BLM incident, Not once has there ever been a domestic attack on the capital. The only time it had been breached was in 1814, but we won't go there.
I am not crying for those who are being fired from their jobs. Even off work, they represent the company (Hey, isn't that A? Doesn't he work at XYZ?)
I have seen all sorts of protests in Washington from the March on Washington, through AntiVietnam Protests, through the BLM incident, Not once has there ever been a domestic attack on the capital. The only time it had been breached was in 1814, but we won't go there.
I suppose if you want to get technical this counts as an "infiltration" of the U.S. Capitol rather than a "breach" since the attackers gained entry by stealth rather than force. It definitely counts as a "domestic attack" though.
I suppose if you want to get technical this counts as an "infiltration" of the U.S. Capitol rather than a "breach" since the attackers gained entry by stealth rather than force. It definitely counts as a "domestic attack" though.
I was five at the time, I cannot recall the incident. I do recall the same group attacking the Blair House which is normally the official guest house of the President but Eisenhower was staying there because the White House was under renovation.
Comments
Yes ... My paternal grandfather's name was Gustav ...
Surname Holst?
Surely the planets make their own music?
Is that's what meant by a disco ball?
Under the headlines of the Dustbin of History: a main reason why DJT vetoed the American defense bill was the provision that the military consider renaming some of its bases if they were named for a confederate person. The House has quickly overridden that veto, but Mr. Sanders, Senator from Vermont is threatening to filibuster it in the Senate if McConnell doesn't bring up the bill to increase the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000.
Who said American politics is boring?
Probably the main reason he vetoed the military bill was that it contained an amendment which would force shell corporations to name their owners and clients. Would make laundering money and foreign interference in US politics MUCH more difficult.
There is no such procedure in the Lords but, in general, the Lords will eventually agree with the Commons after a few games of ping-pong...
On 'private' business, where Bills are not introduced by Ministers, individual MPs can still filibuster so that Bills they don't like - even those that could command a majority - never get through.
A popular view of the filibuster comes from the classic film "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", where it's used to great effect. You can probably watch it on YouTube. (Jimmy Stewart stars.) Worth watching.
Also in "Billy Jack Goes To Washington", which, interestingly, has virtually the same plot--with some martial arts thrown in, though not as much as in a regular Billy Jack film.
The MSGTW version is echoed periodically in other shows/films.
Maybe ... As a peace-making face-saving move, Mitch could ask Judge Merrick Garland to mediate ...
Yeah, they got rid of that version of the filibuster in the 1970s. Everyone hated the old style filibusters where someone (or a group of someones working in concert) would speak for hours, reading from the phone book or any other reference material when they ran out of things to say. It made the Senate look ridiculous and ground all other Senate business to a halt. So they instituted the current version which preserves most of the bad things about filibusters (a minority can gridlock any meaningful action, it rewards the Senate's biggest cranks, etc.) while removing all the inconveniences (the Senate looks ridiculous, all other Senate business grinds to a halt, it required a certain amount a physical stamina, etc.) that made filibusters such a rarity in the past. For this reason the filibuster has become a regular occurrence in recent years instead of a relative oddity.
The Founders fully intended The Senate to be a deliberative body relatively shielded from the passing whims and fancies -- and passions -- of the Masses ... unlike the House of Representatives ...
I'd argue that the Senate still looks ridiculous.
You say that as if the filibuster was a deliberately considered part of the Constitution rather than an accidentally created feature of Senate rules of procedure. I'm getting sick of Constitutional pareidolia, seeing some kind of grand intent by the Framers in what are really accidents of history or ad hoc compromises. Yes, the Framers thought the Senate would be the more deliberative of the two Houses, but they didn't invent the filibuster to insure that.
I never claimed or indicated that The Founders DID "invent the filibuster" ...
(duh)
But The Founders did intend for The Senate to act more slowly care-fully (rather than quickly precipitously) than The House on things,
and ... the filibuster ... does ... slow ... things ... down ...
And there is a bas-relief of Simon de Montfort in the US House of
Representatives, while he remains unmemorialized in Britain.
And the Disciples of Julian Assange all around the world love to wear Guy Fawkes (1570-1606) masks ...
(Speaking of whom, it will be interesting to see if Emperor Donald I grants Julian a Pardon ... Time's runnin' out ...)
There is a De Montfort Hall (at the end of De Montfort Street) and a De Montfort University in Leicester, and the Earl is represented on the city's Clock Tower, so not entirely unmemorialised.
I realized back in 1999 just how long a human life is, and concurrently, how close we are in time to seemingly ancient people and events ...
At the time I was reading a bio of George Washington, who died in 1799, shortly after his second term ... I reflected on the fact that I would turn 50 in 1999, which meant that I had lived fully one fourth of the time since George W. ...
My Dad -- may he Rest in Peace -- grew up on a farm with horses rather than a tractor ...
Tractors arrived late to the crofts here. The local museum has photos from the 70s of ploughing done by Clydesdale horses, though a friend of ours has also resurrected her grandfather's tractor (a 70 year old fergie) to work the family croft. About a year ago we saw the passing of an elderly crofter who was, until a few years ago, the last working blacksmith on the island.
This is in part because the US concept of Ancient is the rest od the world's definition of recent.
Ancient here means before the Roman invasion.
Would you unpack that a bit, please? I looked at the linked tweet and the pic. Are you referring to the Confederate flag? Or...?
Thx.
We can't erase "History," so we're gonna have to deal somehow ... Whoa, *shudder*, *whew* ...
I have seen all sorts of protests in Washington from the March on Washington, through AntiVietnam Protests, through the BLM incident, Not once has there ever been a domestic attack on the capital. The only time it had been breached was in 1814, but we won't go there.
I am not crying for those who are being fired from their jobs. Even off work, they represent the company (Hey, isn't that A? Doesn't he work at XYZ?)
I guess that depends on if you count the 1954 shooting in the House of Representatives by Puerto Rican nationalists. At least Dwight Eisenhower didn't go on the air and tell the terrorists "we love you, you're very special".
Think of it in terms of "Kurdish nationalists", or "Irish nationalists" prior to 1922. You get the idea.
It's not an independent country. That's not the same as not being a nation.
Five Congressmen were shot, though none of them fatally.
I suppose if you want to get technical this counts as an "infiltration" of the U.S. Capitol rather than a "breach" since the attackers gained entry by stealth rather than force. It definitely counts as a "domestic attack" though.
I was five at the time, I cannot recall the incident. I do recall the same group attacking the Blair House which is normally the official guest house of the President but Eisenhower was staying there because the White House was under renovation.