text: A machinic architecture with an underspecified material, spatial, performative and programmatic goal, able to evolve in real-time within the IAAC post-industrial void. The void is filled with trajectories, densities, intensities and processes; it is converted into a new systemic "FUN PALACE". – The workshop operates as a machinic protocol for the syntetisis of the PALACE whose "rooms" coagulate from raw materials, organisational principles, individual experience as well as group coordination, all in real-time. The construction process runs as a cultivation experiment, rigorously in 1:1, from digital diagrams to prototyping and installation. Loop after loop the protocol will unfold non-stop in a marathon lasting 3 days and involving 5 groups of 6-7 students each, working on shifts for a total of 891 man*hours of cultivation. – Relentless manufacturing, layering, testing, playing, discussing [with readings of Cedric Price's original Fun Palace], resting and back again another loop, another group breeding new material articulation and programmatic differentiation. No undoing is possible, only more overlaying, incorporation, negotiation with what is already there.


text:
Paul Ryan's selection as Mitt Romney's running mate is the present culmination of more than two centuries of war on democracy and – in modern times – on the specific gains made through political struggle during the Roosevelt administration after the devastation caused by the Great Depression and on those specific gains for civil rights codified into law during the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson.
To read more articles by Danny Weil and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.
The passage of major environmental, civil rights and campaign finance reform in the late 1960s and early 1970s sounded alarm bells in the corporate world as these democratic reforms came on the heels of those enacted during the New Deal. The response of corporate America to this spirited wave of public, political activity was to develop and fund a sustained and united countervailing political force to directly confront perceived radicalism and threats to cultural, political, patriarchal, racial and economic hierarchy.
The Powell Memo and the Growth of the Reactionary Right
The strategy and tactics to create a sustained and united countervailing political force was laid out in a memo written by Virginia corporate attorney and soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice, Lewis Powell. Many see this memo as the chief catalyst for the paradigm shift in corporate strategy from bipartisanship to far-right acrimony. Written in 1971 at the request of his client at the time, the powerful US Chamber of Commerce, the Powell memo advised the Chamber that corporations needed to organize to stop what he referred to as an "attack on the American free enterprise system" (Powell Manifesto: "Attack of American Free Enterprise System").
The Powell memo went even further, urging corporations to jointly cough up substantial funds to pool for a sustained and coordinated political offensive. More significantly, Powell identified working through the judicial system and an "activist-minded Supreme Court" as essential to shaping "social, economic and political change" for corporate benefit and the assurance of a white, patriarchal hierarchy.
The Chamber of Commerce has always been a leading voice of the right, but since the '60s and '70s upheavals, the US Chamber of Commerce has become an increasingly well-funded and powerful voice on behalf of corporate interests in Washington and a deep-pocketed friend to reactionaries on the campaign trail. In fact, since 1997, the Chamber of Commerce has been deeply involved in political activism and is currently a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
In 1972, Powell was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon (many say as a result of his memo). A close reading of Powell's rulings on the high court finds he overwhelmingly favored corporate power. Justice William Rehnquist, a well-known conservative, was also a Nixon Supreme Court appointee in 1972 and sat on the bench with Powell.
This is the same Rehnquist that, according to Al Jazeera, guarded a largely African-American polling site in South Phoenix, Arizona, in his youth for the Republican Party:
He even made those who spoke accented English interpret parts of the constitution to prove that they understood it. The lines were long, people fought, got tired or had to go to work and many of them left without voting. It was a notorious episode long remembered in Phoenix political circles.
It turned out that it was part of a Republican Party strategy known as "Operation Eagle Eye" and "Bill" was future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. He was confronted with his intimidation tactics in his confirmation hearings years later and characterized his behavior as simple arbitration of polling place disputes. In doing so, he set a standard for GOP dishonesty and obfuscation surrounding voting rights that continues to this day.
Rehnquist also had a hand in the impeachment of Bill Clinton and then went on to decide the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Bush turned right around and appointed John Roberts, now chief justice of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist and considers Rehnquist his mentor), and Roberts went on to deliver the Citizens United decision, setting the stage for the corporate takeover of the government.
Reactionaries Mount Calls for Ryan's Candidacy With Romney
The reactionary Koch brothers, along with Tea Party advocates and gloves-off free-market capitalists have used the Citizens United decision to pressure Romney into selecting Ryan as his running mate. The Koch brothers are staunch supporters of Ryan; in fact, they have been among the largest contributors to Ryan over his entire political career.
Ryan's mission is likely to fulfill papa Fred Koch's vision to restore America to its former glory days as a white Christian nation ruled by a plutocratic moneyed elite. The elder Koch was the founder of the notorious John Birch Society ("Diamond," Sara (1995). NY: Guilford Press. p. 324. ISBN 0-89862-862-8). As the progenitor of the Koch family, the elder Koch candidly and unabashedly wrote, "the colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America," and "welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks to cities, where they would foment a vicious race war").
It is likely the Kochs and their right-wing supporters actually expect Romney will lose the 2012 election, and perhaps they are using his candidacy as a platform to launch Ryan's 2016 run for the presidency. Michele Bachmann's labeling of Huma Abedin as a Muslim terrorist may have been a trial balloon for what is to come in 2016 as the nation's economy plummets further toward the bottom. The same might be said for Romney's TV advertisement attacking welfare recipients, an ad Fred Koch would have applauded.
North Carolina is another cautionary tale of what may lie in wait for working Americans, the LGBT community, women, people of color and the poor. In North Carolina, Koch ally Art Pope used his money to engineer a takeover of both the state Senate and House by hard-line conservatives in 2010; they have been extremely busy implementing a right-wing agenda throughout the state, as well as preparing to tackle Obama at election time.
On Monday, July 2, reactionary North Carolina Republicans closed the 2012 legislative session by overriding four gubernatorial vetoes in a late night session to: allow fracking; defund Planned Parenthood; slash $190 million from public education; and undo the Racial Justice Act, which allowed appeals of death sentences based on racial bias.
As in North Carolina, the Kochs from Wisconsin have been busy funding a national Republican Party purge of what are called "moderates," people who were deemed conservatives in the past. The takeover of the Republican Party by the forces of reaction is nearly complete. The reactionary agenda is part of the war on women's reproductive and social rights; it is a war against the gains made in the civil rights movement of the sixties as well as the New Society; it is a war against education and the environment. In fact, it is a war on the Enlightenment itself with appeals to dark religious fundamentalism clothed in free-market fundamentalist rhetoric arguing for a new Digital Dark Ages equipped with neo-feudalistic socio-economic and cultural arrangements.
In many ways Ryan is THE American Taliban, as he stands for theocracy over democracy and ideological indoctrination over democratic education. His nomination as a running mate for Romney is an indication of how thoroughly our government has been infiltrated by those seeking to subvert the Constitution, undo decades of humanitarian gains and institutionalize a plutocracy fashioned after the Gilded Age and yet firmly set on a medieval past.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Obama accuses Romney of dishonesty during first presidential debate
(CNN) -- A day after losing the first presidential debate to Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama and his campaign accused the Republican challenger of dishonesty over tax policy and other issues.
"If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Denver. "So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. That's the math."
The president's top aides were even more blunt.
"Romney's performance was one that's probably unprecedented in its dishonesty," senior adviser David Plouffe told reporters.
Still, senior campaign adviser David Axelrod acknowledged Obama will examine his debate strategy for the next two contests -- on October 16 in New York and October 22 in Florida.
The president opted against "serial fact-checking with Governor Romney, which can be a never-ending, exhausting pursuit," Axelrod said. "Obviously, going forward, we're going to have to look at this, and we're going to have make some adjustments."
Meanwhile, Romney continued to push his debate theme of too that there's been much federal spending under Obama, complaining of "trickle-down government" that has failed to solve the nation's economic woes.
"Trickle-down government that the president proposes is one where he will raise taxes on small business, which will kill jobs" he said in an unannounced visit Thursday to a conservative conference in Colorado. "I instead want to keep taxes down on small business so we can create jobs."
He and his vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, then appeared together Thursday night in Fisherville, in western Virginia. Ryan touted the National Rifle Association's endorsement earlier in the day of the GOP ticket, adding that he's looking forward to when "after we elect Mitt Romney president, I can take my daughter deer hunting."
Both the Wisconsin congressman and Romney, who followed him onstage, referenced the previous night's debate as demonstrating "a clear choice" for voters.
"Last night was an important night for the country, because people got the chance to cut through all the attacks and the counterattacks and all the theatrics associated with the campaign, and instead they were able to listen to substance," said the former Massachusetts governor.
"As a result ..., the American people recognize that (Obama) and I stand for something very different," he said, before vowing, "I am going to help the American people get good jobs and a bright future."
His supporters crowed about his debate performance, saying it reshaped a race that Romney had appeared in danger of losing.
Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who played the role of the president in debate rehearsals for Romney, said the GOP candidate had a "terrific night" in discussing Obama's record, talking about his own policies and setting "the record straight on ... misleading ads."
"He did exactly what he had to do for the undecided voter in Ohio or around the country," Portman said.
To Ed Gillespie, a senor adviser to Romney, the GOP challenger brought focus to the sharp contrast between the candidates by showing voters that "we can't afford four more years like the last four years."
While both sides were in full spin mode Thursday, it was widely felt that Romney won the debate itself.
"A week ago, people were saying this was over. We've got a horse race," said CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen, who called the debate Romney's best so far after the 22 the former Massachusetts governor took part in during the GOP primary campaign.
Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor, expressed surprise at Romney's strong performance, saying he "rose to the moment" and seemed to benefit from the multiple primary debates.
"It looked like Romney wanted to be there and President Obama didn't want to be there," noted Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville. "The president didn't bring his 'A' game."
The CNN/ORC International poll of 430 people who watched the debate showed 67% thought Romney won, compared with 25% for Obama.
Obama joked Thursday that a different Romney appeared at the debate from the conservative candidate who won a grueling primary campaign to challenge him on November 6.
"When I got on to the stage I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney," Obama said told the crowd of more than 12,000 at a Denver park. "But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that."
In Denver and later in Wisconsin, Obama also went after Romney's pledge during the debate to cut funding for public broadcasting, referring specifically to the popular Sesame Street character Big Bird.
"He'll get rid of regulations on Wall Street, but he's going to crack down on Sesame Street," Obama joked about Romney's pledge to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act that reforms the financial sector.
"Thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird," Obama added. "It's about time. We didn't know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit."
During Wednesday's 90-minute debate, neither presidential candidate scored dramatic blows that will make future highlight reels, and neither veered from campaign themes and policies to date. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS had trouble keeping the duo within time limits for responses, especially Obama, who ended up speaking four minutes longer than Romney.
Romney criticized Obama's record and depicted the president's vision as one of big government, while the Democratic incumbent defended his achievements and challenged his rival's prescriptions as unworkable.
But Romney came off as the more energized candidate overall by repeatedly attacking Obama on red-meat issues for Republicans such as health care reform and higher taxes, while the president began with lengthy explanations and only later focused more on what his opponent was saying.
The former governor's strongest moments came in criticizing Obama's record, saying the nation's high unemployment and sluggish economic recovery showed the president's policies haven't worked.
"There's no question in my mind if the president is re-elected, you'll continue to see a middle-class squeeze," Romney said, adding that another term for Obama also will mean the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, "will be fully installed."
At another point, he noted how $90 billion spent on programs and policies to develop alternative energy sources could have been devoted to hiring teachers or other needs that would bring down unemployment.
Obama argued his policies were working to bring America back from the financial and economic crisis he inherited, and that Romney refused to divulge specifics about his proposed tax plans and replacements for the health care law and Wall Street reform that the Republican has pledged to repeal.
In one of his strongest lines of the night, Obama said Romney lacked the important leadership quality of being able to say "no" when necessary.
"I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party," Obama said in reference to his challenger's swing to the right during the primaries to appeal to the GOP's conservative base.
Romney rejected Obama's characterization of his tax plan, insisting it won't add to the deficit, and criticized the president's call to allow tax rates on income over $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals to return to higher 1990s rates as a job-snuffing tax hike on small business.
Romney repeatedly went after Obama on the health care reform bill, criticizing the president for focusing so strongly on a measure that passed with no Republican support instead of devoting more attention to creating jobs.
"I just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the -- at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people," Romney said.
"The right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care," Romney added, quickly noting his plan would include popular provisions of Obamacare such as allowing children up to age 26 stay on family plans and preventing insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
With polls narrowing less than five weeks before Election Day, Obama and Romney launched a new phase in a bitter race dominated so far by negative advertising as both camps try to frame the election to their advantage.
Whether it matters is itself a topic of debate. According to an analysis by Gallup, televised debates have affected the outcome of only two elections in the past half century -- Nixon-Kennedy in 1960 and Bush-Gore in 2000.
CLICK HERE for additional presidential debate coverage via FOX6Now.com.


text:
The Rights of Man
by Thomas Paine
Being an Answer to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution - part 9 of 16
The situation of Dr. Franklin, as Minister from America to France, should be taken into the chain of circumstances. The diplomatic character is of itself the narrowest sphere of society that man can act in. It forbids intercourse by the reciprocity of suspicion; and a diplomatic is a sort of unconnected atom, continually repelling and repelled. But this was not the case with Dr. Franklin. He was not the diplomatic of a Court, but of MAN. His character as a philosopher had been long established, and his circle of society in France was universal.
Count Vergennes resisted for a considerable time the publication in France of American constitutions, translated into the French language: but even in this he was obliged to give way to public opinion, and a sort of propriety in admitting to appear what he had undertaken to defend. The American constitutions were to liberty what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.
The peculiar situation of the then Marquis de la Fayette is another link in the great chain. He served in America as an American officer under a commission of Congress, and by the universality of his acquaintance was in close friendship with the civil government of America, as well as with the military line. He spoke the language of the country, entered into the discussions on the principles of government, and was always a welcome friend at any election.
When the war closed, a vast reinforcement to the cause of Liberty spread itself over France, by the return of the French officers and soldiers. A knowledge of the practice was then joined to the theory; and all that was wanting to give it real existence was opportunity. Man cannot, properly speaking, make circumstances for his purpose, but he always has it in his power to improve them when they occur, and this was the case in France.
M. Neckar was displaced in May, 1781; and by the ill-management of the finances afterwards, and particularly during the extravagant administration of M. Calonne, the revenue of France, which was nearly twenty-four millions sterling per year, was become unequal to the expenditure, not because the revenue had decreased, but because the expenses had increased; and this was a circumstance which the nation laid hold of to bring forward a Revolution. The English Minister, Mr. Pitt, has frequently alluded to the state of the French finances in his budgets, without understanding the subject. Had the French Parliaments been as ready to register edicts for new taxes as an English Parliament is to grant them, there had been no derangement in the finances, nor yet any Revolution; but this will better explain itself as I proceed.
It will be necessary here to show how taxes were formerly raised in France. The King, or rather the Court or Ministry acting under the use of that name, framed the edicts for taxes at their own discretion, and sent them to the Parliaments to be registered; for until they were registered by the Parliaments they were not operative. Disputes had long existed between. the Court and the Parliaments with respect to the extent of the Parliament's authority on this head. The Court insisted that the authority of Parliaments went no farther than to remonstrate or show reasons against the tax, reserving to itself the right of determining whether the reasons were well or ill-founded; and in consequence thereof, either to withdraw the edict as a matter of choice, or to order it to be unregistered as a matter of authority. The Parliaments on their part insisted that they had not only a right to remonstrate, but to reject; and on this ground they were always supported by the nation.
But to return to the order of my narrative. M. Calonne wanted money: and as he knew the sturdy disposition of the Parliaments with respect to new taxes, he ingeniously sought either to approach them by a more gentle means than that of direct authority, or to get over their heads by a manoeuvre; and for this purpose he revived the project of assembling a body of men from the several provinces, under the style of an "Assembly of the Notables," or men of note, who met in 1787, and who were either to recommend taxes to the Parliaments, or to act as a Parliament themselves. An Assembly under this name had been called in 1617.
As we are to view this as the first practical step towards the Revolution, it will be proper to enter into some particulars respecting it. The Assembly of the Notables has in some places been mistaken for the States-General, but was wholly a different body, the States-General being always by election. The persons who composed the Assembly of the Notables were all nominated by the king, and consisted of one hundred and forty members. But as M. Calonne could not depend upon a majority of this Assembly in his favour, he very ingeniously arranged them in such a manner as to make forty-four a majority of one hundred and forty; to effect this he disposed of them into seven separate committees, of twenty members each. Every general question was to be decided, not by a majority of persons, but by a majority of committee, and as eleven votes would make a majority in a committee, and four committees a majority of seven, M. Calonne had good reason to conclude that as forty-four would determine any general question he could not be outvoted. But all his plans deceived him, and in the event became his overthrow.
The then Marquis de la Fayette was placed in the second committee, of which the Count D'Artois was president, and as money matters were the object, it naturally brought into view every circumstance connected with it. M. de la Fayette made a verbal charge against Calonne for selling crown lands to the amount of two millions of livres, in a manner that appeared to be unknown to the king. The Count D'Artois (as if to intimidate, for the Bastille was then in being) asked the Marquis if he would render the charge in writing? He replied that he would. The Count D'Artois did not demand it, but brought a message from the king to that purport. M. de la Fayette then delivered in his charge in writing, to be given to the king, undertaking to support it. No farther proceedings were had upon this affair, but M. Calonne was soon after dismissed by the king and set off to England.
As M. de la Fayette, from the experience of what he had seen in America, was better acquainted with the science of civil government than the generality of the members who composed the Assembly of the Notables could then be, the brunt of the business fell considerably to his share. The plan of those who had a constitution in view was to contend with the Court on the ground of taxes, and some of them openly professed their object. Disputes frequently arose between Count D'Artois and M. de la Fayette upon various subjects. With respect to the arrears already incurred the latter proposed to remedy them by accommodating the expenses to the revenue instead of the revenue to the expenses; and as objects of reform he proposed to abolish the Bastille and all the State prisons throughout the nation (the keeping of which was attended with great expense), and to suppress Lettres de Cachet; but those matters were not then much attended to, and with respect to Lettres de Cachet, a majority of the Nobles appeared to be in favour of them.
On the subject of supplying the Treasury by new taxes the Assembly declined taking the matter on themselves, concurring in the opinion that they had not authority. In a debate on this subject M. de la Fayette said that raising money by taxes could only be done by a National Assembly, freely elected by the people, and acting as their representatives. Do you mean, said the Count D'Artois, the States-General? M. de la Fayette replied that he did. Will you, said the Count D'Artois, sign what you say to be given to the king? The other replied that he would not only do this but that he would go farther, and say that the effectual mode would be for the king to agree to the establishment of a constitution.
As one of the plans had thus failed, that of getting the Assembly to act as a Parliament, the other came into view, that of recommending. On this subject the Assembly agreed to recommend two new taxes to be unregistered by the Parliament: the one a stamp-tax and the other a territorial tax, or sort of land-tax. The two have been estimated at about five millions sterling per annum. We have now to turn our attention to the Parliaments, on whom the business was again devolving.
The Archbishop of Thoulouse (since Archbishop of Sens, and now a Cardinal), was appointed to the administration of the finances soon after the dismission of Calonne. He was also made Prime Minister, an office that did not always exist in France. When this office did not exist, the chief of each of the principal departments transacted business immediately with the King, but when a Prime Minister was appointed they did business only with him. The Archbishop arrived to more state authority than any minister since the Duke de Choiseul, and the nation was strongly disposed in his favour; but by a line of conduct scarcely to be accounted for he perverted every opportunity, turned out a despot, and sunk into disgrace, and a Cardinal.
The Assembly of the Notables having broken up, the minister sent the edicts for the two new taxes recommended by the Assembly to the Parliaments to be unregistered. They of course came first before the Parliament of Paris, who returned for answer: "that with such a revenue as the nation then supported the name of taxes ought not to be mentioned but for the purpose of reducing them"; and threw both the edicts out. [NOTE] On this refusal the Parliament was ordered to Versailles, where, in the usual form, the King held what under the old government was called a Bed of justice; and the two edicts were unregistered in presence of the Parliament by an order of State, in the manner mentioned, earlier. On this the Parliament immediately returned to Paris, renewed their session in form, and ordered the enregistering to be struck out, declaring that everything done at Versailles was illegal. All the members of the Parliament were then served with Lettres de Cachet, and exiled to Troyes; but as they continued as inflexible in exile as before, and as vengeance did not supply the place of taxes, they were after a short time recalled to Paris.
The edicts were again tendered to them, and the Count D'Artois undertook to act as representative of the King. For this purpose he came from Versailles to Paris, in a train of procession; and the Parliament were assembled to receive him. But show and parade had lost their influence in France; and whatever ideas of importance he might set off with, he had to return with those of mortification and disappointment. On alighting from his carriage to ascend the steps of the Parliament House, the crowd (which was numerously collected) threw out trite expressions, saying: "This is Monsieur D'Artois, who wants more of our money to spend." The marked disapprobation which he saw impressed him with apprehensions, and the word Aux armes! (To arms!) was given out by the officer of the guard who attended him. It was so loudly vociferated, that it echoed through the avenues of the house, and produced a temporary confusion. I was then standing in one of the apartments through which he had to pass, and could not avoid reflecting how wretched was the condition of a disrespected man.
He endeavoured to impress the Parliament by great words, and opened his authority by saying, "The King, our Lord and Master." The Parliament received him very coolly, and with their usual determination not to register the taxes: and in this manner the interview ended.
After this a new subject took place: In the various debates and contests which arose between the Court and the Parliaments on the subject of taxes, the Parliament of Paris at last declared that although it had been customary for Parliaments to enregister edicts for taxes as a matter of convenience, the right belonged only to the States-General; and that, therefore, the Parliament could no longer with propriety continue to debate on what it had not authority to act. The King after this came to Paris and held a meeting with the Parliament, in which he continued from ten in the morning till about six in the evening, and, in a manner that appeared to proceed from him as if unconsulted upon with the Cabinet or Ministry, gave his word to the Parliament that the States-General should be convened.
But after this another scene arose, on a ground different from all the former. The Minister and the Cabinet were averse to calling the States-General. They well knew that if the States-General were assembled, themselves must fall; and as the King had not mentioned any time, they hit on a project calculated to elude, without appearing to oppose.
For this purpose, the Court set about making a sort of constitution itself. It was principally the work of M. Lamoignon, the Keeper of the Seals, who afterwards shot himself. This new arrangement consisted in establishing a body under the name of a Cour Pleniere, or Full Court, in which were invested all the powers that the Government might have occasion to make use of. The persons composing this Court were to be nominated by the King; the contended right of taxation was given up on the part of the King, and a new criminal code of laws and law proceedings was substituted in the room of the former. The thing, in many points, contained better principles than those upon which the Government had hitherto been administered; but with respect to the Cour Pleniere, it was no other than a medium through which despotism was to pass, without appearing to act directly from itself.
The Cabinet had high expectations from their new contrivance. The people who were to compose the Cour Pleniere were already nominated; and as it was necessary to carry a fair appearance, many of the best characters in the nation were appointed among the number. It was to commence on May 8, 1788; but an opposition arose to it on two grounds — the one as to principle, the other as to form.
On the ground of Principle it was contended that Government had not a right to alter itself, and that if the practice was once admitted it would grow into a principle and be made a precedent for any future alterations the Government might wish to establish: that the right of altering the Government was a national right, and not a right of Government. And on the ground of form it was contended that the Cour Pleniere was nothing more than a larger Cabinet.
The then Duke de la Rochefoucault, Luxembourg, De Noailles, and many others, refused to accept the nomination, and strenuously opposed the whole plan. When the edict for establishing this new court was sent to the Parliaments to be unregistered and put into execution, they resisted also. The Parliament of Paris not only refused, but denied the authority; and the contest renewed itself between the Parliament and the Cabinet more strongly than ever. While the Parliament were sitting in debate on this subject, the Ministry ordered a regiment of soldiers to surround the House and form a blockade. The members sent out for beds and provisions, and lived as in a besieged citadel: and as this had no effect, the commanding officer was ordered to enter the Parliament House and seize them, which he did, and some of the principal members were shut up in different prisons. About the same time a deputation of persons arrived from the province of Brittany to remonstrate against the establishment of the Cour Pleniere, and those the archbishop sent to the Bastille. But the spirit of the nation was not to be overcome, and it was so fully sensible of the strong ground it had taken- that of withholding taxes- that it contented itself with keeping up a sort of quiet resistance, which effectually overthrew all the plans at that time formed against it. The project of the Cour Pleniere was at last obliged to be given up, and the Prime Minister not long afterwards followed its fate, and M. Neckar was recalled into office.
The attempt to establish the Cour Pleniere had an effect upon the nation which itself did not perceive. It was a sort of new form of government that insensibly served to put the old one out of sight and to unhinge it from the superstitious authority of antiquity. It was Government dethroning Government; and the old one, by attempting to make a new one, made a chasm.
The failure of this scheme renewed the subject of convening the State-General; and this gave rise to a new series of politics. There was no settled form for convening the States-General: all that it positively meant was a deputation from what was then called the Clergy, the Noblesse, and the Commons; but their numbers or their proportions had not been always the same. They had been convened only on extraordinary occasions, the last of which was in 1614; their numbers were then in equal proportions, and they voted by orders.
It could not well escape the sagacity of M. Neckar, that the mode of 1614 would answer neither the purpose of the then government nor of the nation. As matters were at that time circumstanced it would have been too contentious to agree upon anything. The debates would have been endless upon privileges and exemptions, in which neither the wants of the Government nor the wishes of the nation for a Constitution would have been attended to. But as he did not choose to take the decision upon himself, he summoned again the Assembly of the Notables and referred it to them. This body was in general interested in the decision, being chiefly of aristocracy and high-paid clergy, and they decided in favor of the mode of 1614. This decision was against the sense of the Nation, and also against the wishes of the Court; for the aristocracy opposed itself to both and contended for privileges independent of either. The subject was then taken up by the Parliament, who recommended that the number of the Commons should be equal to the other two: and they should all sit in one house and vote in one body. The number finally determined on was 1,200; 600 to be chosen by the Commons (and this was less than their proportion ought to have been when their worth and consequence is considered on a national scale), 300 by the Clergy, and 300 by the Aristocracy; but with respect to the mode of assembling themselves, whether together or apart, or the manner in which they should vote, those matters were referred. [NOTE]
When the English Minister, Mr. Pitt, mentions the French finances again in the English Parliament, it would be well that he noticed this as an example.
Back to text -
Mr. Burke, (and I must take the liberty of telling him that he is very unacquainted with French affairs), speaking upon this subject, says, "The first thing that struck me in calling the States-General, was a great departure from the ancient course"; -- and he soon after says, "From the moment I read the list, I saw distinctly, and very nearly as it has happened, all that was to follow." -- Mr. Burke certainly did not see an that was to follow. I endeavoured to impress him, as well before as after the States-General met, that there would be a revolution; but was not able to make him see it, neither would he believe it. How then he could distinctly see all the parts, when the whole was out of sight, is beyond my comprehension. And with respect to the "departure from the ancient course," besides the natural weakness of the remark, it shows that he is unacquainted with circumstances. The departure was necessary, from the experience had upon it, that the ancient course was a bad one. The States-General of 1614 were called at the commencement of the civil war in the minority of Louis XIII.; but by the class of arranging them by orders, they increased the confusion they were called to compose. The author of L'Intrigue du Cabinet, (Intrigue of the Cabinet), who wrote before any revolution was thought of in France, speaking of the States-General of 1614, says, "They held the public in suspense five months; and by the questions agitated therein, and the heat with which they were put, it appears that the great (les grands) thought more to satisfy their particular passions, than to procure the goods of the nation; and the whole time passed away in altercations, ceremonies and parade." -- L'Intrigue du Cabinet, vol. i. p. 329.
Back to text


text:
Our editors will review what you've submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Related Topics:
- lancer
- shock weapon
lance, spear used by cavalry for mounted combat. It usually consisted of a long wooden shaft with a sharp metal point. Its employment can be traced to the ancient Assyrians and Egyptians, and it was widely used by the Greeks and Romans, despite their lack of the stirrup, which did not appear until the 6th century ad.
The combination of lance and stirrup gave the armoured knights of the European Middle Ages tremendous shock potential in battle and led to the development of the tournament joust, in which single knights sought to unhorse each other by holding their lances level and charging headlong at each other. The butt end of the shaft was couched in a leather rest attached to the saddle. Medieval battles usually disintegrated into hundreds of such single combats.
The introduction of firearms at once outmoded the lance, yet various factors prevented its being discarded and even brought it a surprising vogue lasting well into modern times. For one thing, the lance was a cheap weapon; for another, it did not require a constant renewal of ammunition. Russia and eastern Europe led a revival of the lance in the late 18th century, and a regiment of Polish lancers formed by Napoleon in 1807 was so successful that it was followed by the conversion of several other French cavalry regiments. The Prussians, British, and others organized lancer regiments.
The lance was carried by the cavalry of all the principal European armies through the 19th century, largely because there was no rigorous test of its effectiveness in the face of long-range musket or rifle fire. Part of its appeal lay in its contribution to peacetime military pageantry. In 1889, despite the indifferent success of lancers in the Franco-German War, Germany converted all of its remaining cavalry regiments into lancers known as Uhlans. In 1914 they briefly carried their antique weapons into a machine-gun war, as did the British and French—men were run through with lances at the first Battle of the Marne. Through hard experience, the general staffs of Europe eventually (and reluctantly) conceded that a charge of lancers or any other cavalry contingent could easily be mowed down by machine-gun fire before reaching the defenders' lines. And so by the 1920s the lance had quietly faded out of the Western armory. The lance made an anachronistic battlefield appearance in the hands of Polish cavalrymen who charged German columns in September 1939, at the beginning of World War II, with some success.


text:
If the U.S. Senate ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land? If the Senate ratifies the "cap and trade" climate change treaty, will that become part of the supreme Law of the Land?
We hear it said that whenever the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of "the supreme Law of the Land". But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
Will Donald Trump win the 2024 election?
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution?
Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any object? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Article II, §2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says the President:
… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…
Article VI, cl. 2 says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.
2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of texts) 1 that one must give effect to every word and phrase. The clause does not say, "Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land". Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United
States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made "under the Authority of the United States".
3. From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on an object before any Treaty made by them on that object qualifies as part of "the supreme Law of the Land". If the Constitution does not authorize the President and Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not "Law" – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. (Federalist Paper No. 33, last para).
Because the Constitution is "fundamental" law (Federalist No. 78, 11th & 12th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all Presidential Acts, all Acts of Congress, all Treaties, and all Judicial Decisions is measured (Federalist No. 78, 10th para).
4. In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison explains why it is necessary that Art. VI, cl. 2, provide that federal treaties have supremacy over State Constitutions. Otherwise, a treaty which violates a State Constitution would have no effect in that State:
…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere withstrong>some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]
Madison thus illustrates the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist Papers on this point.
So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: 2
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]
According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]
5. So! The treaty making power of the United States is very limited. What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do. The Constitution delegates to Congress powers "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations … and with the Indian Tribes" (Art I, § 8, cl. 3); and "To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" (Art I, § 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to "…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…" (Art II, §2, cl. 2).
The authors of The Federalist Papers address the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay says treaties relate to "war, peace, and to commerce" and to the promotion of "trade and navigation" (Federalist No. 64, 3rd & 6th paras). Madison says treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors & consuls and to commerce (Federalist No. 42, 1st four paras).
There may be additional objects of the treaty making power authorized in The Constitution. For example, Art I, § 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents & copyrights. 3
6. Let's look now at the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. If ratified by the Senate, would it become part of "the supreme Law of the Land"?
To answer that Question, we must ask: Does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting "children"? Does the Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over "children"?
The answer to both questions is "NO!" In addition, the 10th Amendment says if a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States by Art. I, §10, it is reserved to the States or the people. Thus, jurisdiction over "children" is reserved to the States or the People! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the treaty would NOT become part of "the supreme Law of the Land", because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.
If the Senate were to ratify the cap-and-trade "climate" treaty, which, among other things, would force energy companies to buy allowances or permits for their "carbon emissions", would it become part of "the supreme law of the Land"? You are now equipped to find the answer, and you can confidently defend it!
Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.
7. Finally, Thomas Jefferson points to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States. Thomas Jefferson says: 2
We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three [did he mean, "two"?] branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329 [emphasis added]
I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt.–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41
What a man! And our system of checks & balances is an elegant one, indeed!
8. Folks! For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, "If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme Law of the Land!" And not only do we believe it, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our Constitutional Republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover how to think and analyze. And then, we must boldly say, "They don't have authority under The Constitution to do that!" PH
1 Educators no longer teach "rules of construction", because it has become the dogma of our time that texts have no "objective meaning" to be discovered. Instead, each person is to come up with his own "understanding" – and one person's "understanding" is as good as another's. A friend recalls the following incident which occurred in his high school English class during 1960: The class read a short story, and then the teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But when it was my friend's turn, he said: "It doesn't matter what it means to me – what matters is what the author meant." The teacher was not pleased with this 'out of place' comment. Is it any wonder many judges feel free to "understand" the Constitution any way they please? They were conditioned in school to "think" this way; and they did not resist the conditioning.
2 I originally obtained these Jefferson quotes from the University of Virginia webpage on Thomas Jefferson. However, they have since reorganized their Jefferson pages, and I can no longer find the quotes there. I will have to find these quotes somewhere else.
3 It has been said that Charles Dickens' works were pirated, printed and sold in these United States without paying any royalties to Dickens! A copyright treaty with Great Britain would have discouraged this theft of Dickens' intellectual property.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.


text:
Table of Contents
'Tuscaloosa News' Dings U of Alabama for Censorship of Pro-Choice Speech
Administrators at the University of Alabama (UA) are doing the seemingly impossible: bringing pro-choice and pro-life forces together to agree with one another. Unfortunately for the university, what both sides agree upon is that UA administrators are completely in the wrong when it comes to free speech. UA's decision to order the pro-choice Alabama Alliance for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (AASRJ) student group to stop passing out flyers in response to a pro-life display on campus has been roundly bashed, even by the sponsors of the pro-life display, Bama Students for Life. On Sunday, the editors of UA's hometown newspaper, The Tuscaloosa News, editorialized in favor of the right of pro-choice students to speak out despite their disagreement with AASRJ's message, saying, What the group calls "reproductive justice" we would call an unjust taking of life. Abortions are wrong and far too easy to obtain. Elbein and other members of the group would disagree. And we believe that they should have a right to disagree and make their disagreement heard.[...]If everyone who merely wishes to stand in a public place at the university and distribute literature needs to fill out applications for permits, we have a problem with that. So should anyone who takes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution seriously. Darn right. It's time for UA to acknowledge that its grounds use policy is broken and issue a fix that will allow students to speak out freely on matters of public importance. That's one thing even opponents in our society's hottest social debates can agree upon.
Recent Articles
FIRE's award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.


text:
Peter Frampton Announces 'Guitar Circus' Tour with B.B. King and Others
Peter Frampton loves guitar music, obviously, and he'll get a chance to explore his passion further during the 'Guitar Circus' tour he has planned for 2013. Billboard reports that the musician will welcome several guitar greats, including the legendary B.B. King, during the summer run.
King was the first confirmed participant for the trek, prompting Frampton to declare, "I'm so honored. I can't wait to speak to him and thank him." The blues great will reportedly join the tour for three weeks in August, and we really hope he straps on the talk box.
According to Frampton, the idea for the trek is to have it run throughout the summer with special guests signing on to play a select amount of dates. He adds that his repertoire is undecided at this point and may vary depending on who joins the tour at specific junctures. More names will be revealed for the trek as it approaches next year.
The 'Guitar Circus' isn't the only thing that Frampton has in the works. He'll perform a handful of shows with a Cincinnati ballet troupe in April, and he recently revealed that there may be some Humble Pie reissues arriving in 2013 as well.
The singer-guitarist has also been nominated in our 2012 Ultimate Classic Rock Awards for his appearance in a Buick Verano commercial. The promo is currently up for 2012's Best Commercial honor. You can see the spot, as well as all of the other nominated commercials, and place your vote here.


text:
Grubb Starts Final Fantasy VII Rebirth
Unprofessional Fridays
Game Mess Mornings 03/01/24
#230 - Spooky Milk Life
GameSpot After Dark
The Community Spotlight 2024.03.02
The Community Spotlight 2024.02.24
The Community Spotlight 2024.02.17
Company »
The Internets want to talk about this game with you. If you want to talk to them, start us off!
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment


text:
Production legend Bob Ezrin on 11 career-defining records
Production legend Bob Ezrin talks about 11 career-defining records
In his remarkable 40-plus-year career, one which has resulted in touchstone hits for upstarts and superstars, shock rockers and progressive pioneers, producer Bob Ezrin has invariably taught more than a few artists a lesson or two. Asked to recall the biggest kernel of wisdom he's ever gleaned from his years in the studio, the record maker sums it up by insisting that the art of music is all that matters.
"When your motivation is to simply be successful and sell records, you're going to fail," Ezrin says. "But if you're interested in doing something excellent and producing work that matters, you're going to succeed. The best artists I've worked with have always obsessed over their work; they've paid very little attention to the market that it goes into. They know that the art is all that counts."
Barely out of his teens, Ezrin absorbed the ins and outs of record making from Jack Richardson, the late Canadian music giant who helmed a string of hits for The Guess Who and started the Toronto-based Nimbus 9 Productions. While Richardson's protege, he received a full year of training that involved everything from how to wrap a mic cable to writing string charts. "Jack taught me everything there was to know about recording," Ezrin says. "He kicked my butt before he turned me loose on the world with Alice Cooper. But at that point, I was a pretty knowledgeable, confident guy. I'd gone through my apprenticeship."
Along with Richardson's son Garth, himself a noted record producer whose credits include Rage Against The Machine and Biffy Clyro, among others, Ezrin started the Nimbus School Of Recording Arts in Vancouver in 2009. The motivation for establishing a teaching institution was not altogether altruistic, as Ezrin explains: "Garth and I were talking about the number of people we had to fire, which was pretty incredible. We kept finding that so many young people were lacking in some areas and had an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. We need good people to work with, and we figured, if can't find them, we should develop them ourselves."
Already, Nimbus is turning out success stories (a number of graduates now work at Richardson's Vancouver facility, The Farm), but its young alumni will have a ways to go to match the achievements of its co-founder. On the following pages, Ezrin takes a look back at his times behind the studio glass and shares stories behind the making of some of rock's greatest masterpieces.
Alice Cooper - Love It To Death (1971)
"They wanted my boss, Jack Richardson, to produce the band. He had produced The Guess Who, which was about as far-out and raunchy as he wanted to get. When [Cooper manager] Shep Gordon walked into the office with copies of Easy Action and Pretties For You, Jack took a look at the pictures of the band and wanted nothing to do with them. He said, 'I'll send the kid – meaning me – to see band.' My instructions, however, were to get rid of them.
"I went to see the band at Max's Kansas City in New York, and I fell in love with them. Rather than get rid of them, I said that we should do it. Then I had to go back and plead for my job, because I did exactly the opposite of what I had been sent to do. I argued so annoyingly that Jack finally said, 'Enough! All right, if you like it so much, you do it.' That's how I got the job.
"When I first heard I'm Eighteen, I actually thought Alice was singing, 'I'm edgy.' I told the band that I really loved that song 'Edgy,' and they thought I was crazy. I didn't know why they looked at me so unsure. But when they told me the line was 'I'm eighteen, and I don't know what I want,' I said, 'Wow, well, that's even better!'"
Alice Cooper - School's Out (1972)
"Once we started working together, we became a team. It wasn't broke, so nobody wanted to fix it; whenever it was time to make a record, they called me.
"The song School's Out came from [guitarist] Glen Buxton, who came up with this amazing riff. Shep called me in Toronto and said, 'I think the boys just wrote a hit. You need to get out here.' I met them in LA and we went into a rehearsal room. They had the beginnings of the song; we put it all together, and it became a big hit record.
"It was a fun album to do, and it the first one we did outside of Chicago. We had been making records at the RCA's Mid-America Recording Center, which we really loved, but when the band started to take off, it was thought that we should embrace New York and take that city by storm. The best way to do that was to move everybody there.
"I had worked at A&R Studios in New York with Phil Ramone, but I also knew that [engineer] Shelly Yakus had moved over to this hot new studio called The Record Plant. So we went there to give it a try, and from the moment we walked in, we knew we were in the right place.
"The guys in the band were kind of like The Jets from West Side Story; they were snot-nosed Bowery Boys. That's how they acted, and those were their references. We decided to do some portion of West Side Story and turn it into a thing. It was also a bit of an indulgence for me. But it worked out well – I listen to it now, and while it sounds kind of primitive, it has a lot of charm. The audience really appreciated it."
Lou Reed - Berlin (1973)
"I had done an album with Mitch Ryder and his band in Detroit, on which we covered Lou's song Rock & Roll. Lou heard it and said, 'I want to work with the guy who did that.' I went to go see Lou play a show in Toronto, and afterwards we started talking about the project. Eventually, we wound up sitting on my living room floor, playing songs and kicking around ideas.
"I said to him, 'You wrote all of these amazing snapshots of people's lives, these four minute portraits, but what happens with them? The stories only go so far.' I used the two lovers in the song Berlin as an example, but I said, 'Wouldn't it be cool to tell the whole story? Why not do something like that?' He thought that was a great. Then we decided to not do something 'like' that; we were going to do exactly that.
"He went home and started writing, and when he came back with the guitar-and-vocal versions of some of these songs, it was chilling. He had done such a phenomenal job. It was then my job to take the tunes and turn them into something more orchestrated in the rock sense. It's a fantastic record. They just remastered it last week, and Lou called me from the mastering room to tell me how beautiful it sounded."
KISS - Destroyer (1976)
"I didn't know who KISS were, but there was this little kid in Toronto who used to phone me – this was back when my number was listed – and he would tell me what was hot, what was not, what I should be listening to, what I should be producing. He was like my own personal fanboy. He called to tell me about KISS. 'They're amazing, but their records suck. You should produce them.'
"Their records didn't suck, but I understood what he was saying – they could have been more sophisticated. It was pretty prescient of him to say, and he was dead right – we should be working together.
"When the song Beth was first played for me, it was bouncier, with almost a country or rockabilly vibe to it. It was also a little chauvinistic, like they were saying, 'Me and the boys, we got something going on. You can sit there and wait.' It was also called 'Beck.'
"I asked them if it was OK for me to take it home to mess around a little bit, and Peter [Criss] said it was fine with him. I came up with the piano thing, which started to define it as more romantic and sensitive, so I changed the lyrics. First, I called it 'Beth,' and then I added stuff about 'our house is not our home,' along with a sense of sadness and loss about the death of the relationship. But that line 'I hope you'll be all right' – that was important.
"I played it for everybody, and they thought it sounded good and that we should try it. I don't think they realized how important it would be for them until they heard it being recorded during the orchestra date. I played piano on it – they'd heard my piano part before. But the orchestra really made them think, 'Wow, this is going to be important.'
"And it was. When I had first gone to see the band in Saginaw, Michigan, they were playing to 15- and 16-year-old boys. It was amazing – hardly a girl in the place. I thought, 'Here's a great opportunity.' Their whole show was so dick-swinging macho that I couldn't see girls getting into it. I told them that I wanted them to be the bad boys, but they should be the bad boys that every girl wants to save. There had to be a little bit of vulnerability.
"The whole idea of the album was to show some sensitivity; it wasn't going to all be cock and balls. One of the first songs to come up was Do You Love Me? For me, that was the best symbol of what I was hoping to do with the record. As it turned out, that one never became a hit single, but it did inform the project."
Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel (1977)
"This was at a very important time in Peter's life. There was so much going on, so many questions. He wasn't entirely sure what he wanted to accomplish, but when we got together, we decided to explore. We sort of had a better idea of what we wanted to do with a stage show than the music.
"I moved Peter and his wife, Jill, and their daughter Anna to New York. I rented them Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon's apartment – a really magical place. You've got one of the greatest writers with Garson, and then there's Ruth, who was in Rosemary's Baby. Anyway, Peter would come to my apartment on 52ndStreet. He would sit at the piano and noodle around while I was in my office upstairs, and every time I heard something I liked, I would run out and say, 'Let's record that!' We would put everything on cassette. Eventually, we assembled a bunch of pieces we really liked, a sense of a direction musically, and that's when Peter went back to England to flesh it out.
"The next time we got together was in Toronto, when it was time to do pre-production for the record. We did it at the same studio where I'd recorded Love It To Death, and actually we used many of the same musicians.
"It was a brilliant experience for me to work with Peter, and it has been every time we've worked together. We've managed to do it a number of times over the years, and we're still great friends. I truly love that man and his family. I find him to be so stimulating to work with. He's a real artist with a capital "A.' And he elevates my game, absolutely."
Pink Floyd - The Wall (1979)
"The Wall is a crowning achievement technically, lyrically and musically; it's one of the things that I've most proud of having been involved with. Everybody was firing on all cylinders and was at the peak of their conditioning and talents. The end product shows that generations are still discovering the album, which for me is one of the most gratifying things about it. I really consider it to be a work of art.
"Roger's fiancée, Caroline, had worked with me in London. We had hired her to be our rep for some of the things I was doing – Lou Reed, Alice Cooper – so when Roger started to noodle with the idea of bringing a producer into the project to work with the band, she said that he ought to talk to me about it. A side note: When I first started working with Alice Cooper in 1970, they were into British art rock and listening to things I'd never heard of – T. Red and Pink Floyd. They played me my first Pink Floyd, and I fell totally in love and became a monster fan.
"Actually, this story goes before then: When Pink Floyd were in Canada on the Animals tour, Caroline had called me to say hi, and I invited them over to the house for a barbecue. Roger couldn't come because he was soundchecking, but Caroline invited me to the gig, and she said that we would all ride out to the show together. I was in the limo with them, and Roger said something about wanting to build a wall between the band and the audience. I think I said, 'Wow, that's a great idea, Roger.'
"So later, after Caroline had mentioned me to Roger and he felt comfortable with the idea, he sent [manager] Steve O'Rourke to New York to talk to me about it. Steve asked me if I would go out to the country to Roger's house to listen to demos. I did so, and we listened to two projects, one of which became The Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking and the other was The Wall. At this point, Roger wasn't sure which one he should do. I believe everyone was unanimous in picking The Wall as the one to work on. I certainly was. While they were both great, that's the one that touched me the most.
"Working with Roger musically and conceptually was always incredibly stimulating. Sometimes it was difficult, but it was also exciting and thrilling and very challenging. There were so many things going on. There was never a moment where Roger and I looked at just a verse of a song; it was always part of something bigger.
"With Roger, it was like working on a theatrical production; with the other guys, it was like working with a rock band. They were all great. Nick [Mason] was a delight to be with, really smart and funny. Rick Wright was a gentle, sweet man, but at the time he was feeling very self-conscious about his relationship with Roger. I felt sorry for him on certain levels during that time, and I sometimes had to stand up for him. He wasn't a fighter; he was always more of a passive guy.
"And David… working with him is always a stone musical thrill. He's one of the greatest players of all time. He does it in a very understated and un-self-conscious way. Sometimes you would think he has no idea how great what he just played is. He just knocks it off and has some tea, and you're standing there going, 'Oh, my God... I just heard the best thing in my entire life.'
"Like the solo on Comfortably Numb. That was one take – and not only one take, the first take! The first time he ever played it, that's what came out. We tried 100 times to make it better, but we never could. The first time I heard it, I said, 'That's the best solo I've ever heard.' David said, 'No, no, I can do better.' He kept trying until he finally gave up, and he realized that we had the best one."
Pink Floyd - A Momentary Lapse Of Reason (1987)
"I had done The Wall, and then there was a conflict between Roger and me. It was two-pronged – one side was really my fault, and the other part was out of my control.
"I had signed an NDA [non-disclosure agreement] about The Wall and everything we were doing with it. One day a friend a mine, who also happens to be a rock journalist, called me to tell me that his magazine wouldn't pay for him to see The Wall – we were about to do the live show in LA. He said, 'You know how much I love the band, so just between us, what am I missing? What am I not going to see?' I asked him if this was off the record, and he said, 'Off the record, absolutely.'
"I was just about to sit down to dinner, but I was really excited about the show, so I told him some of the things we were doing. The next week in Billboard it said, 'Over dinner with Bob Ezrin,' and it revealed some of the details. This put Roger into an apoplectic fit – rightly so. He had worked so hard to keep it all a secret, and then the secret was out, and it appeared to be my fault. It was my fault. I was naïve in believing that there was such as thing as 'off the record.'
"I was banned after that. They used Michael Kamen for the next record, The Final Cut – I had brought Michael in to work on The Wall. Roger wouldn't talk to me. Finally, some years down the line, I got a call from him asking me to come to England to talk about a new project. 'Pink Floyd is no more,' he said, 'and they wouldn't dare go on without me.' I told him that I couldn't go to England right then – I was either doing Rod Stewart or Berlin – but we agreed to meet in New York.
"We got together, and the first thing he did was apologize. He said, 'I was very hard on you, and I'm sorry. It was a difficult time in my life, and I was perhaps a little unfair.' I was so happy to have Roger Waters back in my life, because I love him. He's one of the most brilliant people I've ever known.
"We had a great time, we bonded, and he told me he wanted me to produce the new album. I said that I was very interested, and that was that. We started to try to make arrangements, but it was very, very difficult. I had to go to England to work with him, and once we started, we couldn't stop. Basically, I had to move my family, which involved many things – it all became more and more difficult. One night, my wife broke into tears. There was so much involved with our family going to England. We were going to have to leave the dog boarded for months; the kids were going to have to enroll in these other schools. Finally, she said it was too much and that I can't do it.
"I called Peter Rudge, who was the manager at the time, and I said, 'Peter, I can't do it.' He was like, 'Oh, you're killing me. I don't want to have to give this news to Roger.' I told him I was so sorry, that I had honestly tried. And we were already pretty far down the line heading towards the record. It was pretty late to be pulling out. But at the end of the day, my wife wins. That was that.
"Literally, three weeks later, I got a call from Dave Gilmour telling me, 'Roger's left, but we're keeping the band together. We're doing an album, and we'd like to know if you'd work with us. We have some song ideas – may I come to LA to show them to you?' I said, 'Yeah, sure.' 'Cause, you know, I love Dave, too. Dave and the band are amazing talents, so I was really excited.
What was different was the fact that Dave said, 'Look, you've got a family, I've got a family – why don't we split it up? We'll do a bit in England and a bit here.' It was so much easier and more accommodating of my family situation, so I said, 'I'm in.'
"Roger got very angry, and he believed that I knew I was going to do this before I'd pulled out of his project. In a way, he sort of believed a conspiracy, that I'd strung him along so that he'd be late and wouldn't be able to his record out before Pink Floyd. None of which is true – I had no thoughts about any of that. I just felt more comfortable with the situation and that we were going to do a lot of it in LA, where I lived.
"Anyway, we started Momentary Lapse. We began in this Victorian houseboat boat that David had bought – a brilliant piece of architecture. It was a very fertile environment; the water was gorgeous, and the ideas were flying. We had a great time."
Catherine Wheel - Adam And Eve (1997)
"This was my coming-out-of-retirement record. I had hit a wall with record production and decided to concentrate on my new media company, 7th Level. We made games and educational software for computers and were the first to bring animation to the desktop. I was thrilled and excited by it – records weren't turning my crank.
"Merck Mercuriadis, who was a senior agent at Sanctuary – actually, he went on to be the head of Sanctuary – he's a Toronto boy who's familiar with my career. When he moved over to Sanctuary, one of his clients became Storm Thorgerson, my dear and recently departed friend. I guess they were talking about how I should be in the studio. It started off with Merck coming to me at 7th Level and talking about getting Storm in the world of interactivity – a Storm CD-ROM – but in every conversation we ever had, he would say, 'But you know I'm gonna get you back in the studio.'
"And he did. He just kept pushing until he hit the right button, which was Catherine Wheel. I met [singer-guitarist] Rob [Dickerson] and went to a band rehearsal. Seeing them play in a room and listening to Rob's voice made me fall in love with the idea of working with Catherine Wheel. I just think that Rob is such a huge talent.
"This was a foray back into the studio side of my life at a time when I had other responsibilities. I agreed to do the album with a group of folks; I didn't want to be the guy on the line every day. I spent as much time as I could with them and did as much work as possible. I really enjoyed all of it, particularly the mixing process – I loved that."
30 Seconds To Mars - 30 Seconds To Mars (2002)
"Arthur Spivak, the band's manager, is a friend of mine, and he called me when Jared Leto first decided to do this. I also heard from another friend, Tony Berg, who was the A&R guy for the band. They all thought, because of the dramatic nature of the project, that it would be a natural for me.
"And they were right. I think Jared is just brilliant. This is a guy who has a singularity of vision and an obsessive nature. He knows what he wants, and he will keep slugging till he gets to the point that he's aiming at.
"The first album was a bit of a learning experience for Jared and a great developmental step, and it's pretty good. It's not as good as the 30 Seconds To Mars albums that came over time – he definitely honed his craft and learned pretty quickly. He's a major talent.
"We're all naturally curious about actors who try to step into doing something else – how much do they mean it? But the Leto brothers have been playing together for a long time, and it was always a dream of theirs to be rock stars. Same with Johnny Depp, who moved to LA to get a deal for his band. It's hard for some of these guys who have talents in different areas – people can be skeptical. Jared is a compelling actor, magnetic actor – his presence on the screen is undeniable – but history has proved him right as to his first career choice."
Deftones - Saturday Night Wrist (2006)
"I was with the band at a transitional time for them, so it was kind of a tough record. At the end of the day, I don't know if we were a great fit. Contrasting this experience with working with Deep Purple, there was some conflict, and there were times when we almost came to blows – or at least Chino and I did.
"They're all incredibly talented, and they're very unique in terms of where they grew up, their cultural geography and their individual tastes. You put it all together and you get a really eclectic and artful band.
"I wish that Chi were still here. I felt a deep affection for him and really enjoyed working with him. He was very creative and sensitive."
Deep Purple - Now What?! (2013)
"It came together when Neil Warnock, the founder of The Agency Group, came to me and said, 'I want you to produce the next Deep Purple album.' And, actually, I said, 'I don't think so,' because I was already working with Alice Cooper, and I didn't want to be thought of as an oldies guy. But he said, 'Yeah, but this is different. You need to come and see the band.'
"I went to see them, and halfway into the set they did this jam where they're like a four-man orchestra. Steve Morse, Don Airey, Ian Paice and Roger Glover – each guy, in his own way, is like the best player to hit a rock stage. And when Ian Gillan sings those classic songs, he's still got an incredible voice. They knocked me out. But what impressed me was how the audience reacted to the stuff they used to do, the kinds of things nobody is doing anymore. That's what moved the audience the most.
"I went to talk to them, and I told them, 'If you want to be a contemporary band and vie for radio play, you'd better talk to somebody else, 'cause I don't think it's possible. You can't compete with the bands of today on their turf. But if you want to be resolutely yourselves and make a quintessential Deep Purple album, then we have something to talk about.' And Roger said it best: 'We want to put the deep into Deep Purple again.'
"This album was made to capture what the band is without trying to make them something they're not. We were fanatical about this being a true Deep Purple record. There weren't moments of intense conflict, but occasionally I did say that something needed to be a different way than what it was. Thankfully, they responded to my ideas and were excited by them, and we developed a relationship of confidence and trust.
"It was a really natural collaboration. We all had a similar musical language – if not exactly the same, it was still one we understood. Everybody came to work every day excited about what they were doing, and they gave it their very best."


text:
From the confederation of provinces which formed Canada in 1867 until 1982, Canada was a country of parliamentary supremacy. That is not to say that Canada was governed well; sometimes she was governed well, sometimes ill, but always she was governed by the elected representatives of the people. Issues of public policy were determined by legislators who, at least quadrennially, were required to account for their policies to an electorate that had voted them into office.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a by-product of then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's 1982 constitutional patriation package, changed that. Essentially, Canada ceased to be a country of parliamentary supremacy and became, like the United States, a country of constitutional supremacy, where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land. It is noteworthy that since 1982 the Canadian Supreme Court has, by and large, followed the same ideological imperatives as the American courts and in response to the same agenda. The forces propelling this agenda are both transnational and relativistic. The Canadian voter still goes to the polls quadrennially, but it is judges who have imposed abortion on demand ( R. v. Morgentaler ), who came within a single vote in the Supreme Court of creating a Charter right to physician-assisted suicide ( R. v. Rodriguez ), and who are systematically eradicating any normative distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality ( M. v. H. ).
In Canada we have one advantage over the United States in that our Charter of Rights includes section 43, the so-called notwithstanding clause. This clause allows the parliament of Canada, or any provincial legislature, to override certain specified sections of the Charter, if that government is prepared to take the political heat involved in doing so. To date the only government that has demonstrated the political will to invoke section 43 has been the government of Quebec.
The problem with constitutional supremacy is that constitutions are not self-interpreting; one Ontario judge recently wrote: Elected representatives of the people create constitutions, leaving it to nonelected judges (in Canada at least) to decide what exactly they have created. The power to interpret means that judicial hubris is inevitable, judicial tyranny an unfortunate possibility.
Decision-making by courts is the antithesis of democracy. The court is unelected, nine appointed men and women, all drawn from the same profession, milieu, and background, accountable to no one, and holding security of tenure until age seventy-five. To some extent, Canadian courts have sought to deflect this criticism by saying that judges did not seek their new Charter role; it was thrust upon them.
There is a measure of truth in this. The more significant point, however, is that even under the Charter the courts could have developed a doctrine of judicial self-restraint, as the U.S. Supreme Court has done on certain occasions. Instead the Supreme Court of Canada seized the opportunity to substitute its will for that of parliament on some of the most divisive social issues of the day"abortion, for example, in the Morgentaler case. As a result, Canada has the invidious distinction of being the only country in the Western world with no legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion.
Many Supreme Court judgments, in recent years, have ceased to have much legal content and have become instead a random collection of the judges' personal and ideological predilections. The feminist wing of the Supreme Court, led by Madame Justice Bertha Wilson, developed an explicit ideology; judges who did not defer to it were told to butt out. In her judgment in R. v. Morgentaler , Madame Justice Wilson wondered if men were capable of understanding abortion, or even qualified to express any opinion on the issue. In R. v. Lavallee she changed the law on self-defense to allow women to kill their battering spouses because otherwise jurors might accept what she called the myth that if a battered woman is dissatisfied, she might consider leaving home. And on the topic of myth, Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube in R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme recently denounced what she called the stereotypical myth that men who rape women are not normal men. The corollary, which we are asked to accept as judicial truth, is that all men are potential or actual rapists.
The interesting question is why judicial interpretation of the Charter of Rights has proved so perverse? Is it, as Job prophesied, an instrument to make the counselors behave like idiots, and drive the judges mad? Let me suggest three answers to this question.
First, a Charter of Rights wrongly conceives the crux of the problem. Since John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty we have come to conceive of liberty in individualistic terms, a view the Canadian Charter expressly embodies. The individual needs protection against the tyranny of the majority, and so we enact a Charter of Rights to achieve that protection. But the claim to individual liberty very often masks harm to the collectivity; we are not just atomized individuals, we are also members of a community, citizens of an organized society. The individual's claim to liberty, albeit expressed in the high-minded rhetoric of rights, often conceals selfish, sometimes perverse, interests. The sanctification of Larry Flynt as a martyr to free speech is a recent case in point. The lone, brave individual standing his ground against the menacing omnipotent state was John Stuart Mill's archetype and this is powerful mythology; the sadistic criminal going free and making citizens ever more fearful, even in their own homes, is the more common reality.
Second, the Charter of Rights is pernicious in that it forestalls true political debate. The appropriate level of restraint on individual liberties is, or should be, a fundamental political question. But in Canada such debate does not occur: it is reduced to one person claiming I have a right to which the only response is either acquiescence or denial. Ultimately, all such issues are now resolved by courts. Such a puerile approach to deep philosophical questions does immeasurable harm to the possibility of mature political discourse. It also inflates judicial hubris.
Finally, a Charter of Rights fundamentally misconceives the problem of liberty. Our liberties are not threatened by devils in Ottawa, nor very often by pigs in police uniforms, nor often by tyrannical majorities; the problem is within ourselves, whether each of us can discern and live by an appropriate balance between freedom and restraint, between indulgence and self-discipline.
The lesson that Alexandr Solzhenitsyn learned in the freezing darkness of the Gulag Archipelago was that the line between good and evil ran not between nations, nor between states, not even between ideologies, but right down the center of each and every human heart. So, too, does the line between liberty and license, between rights and responsibilities. The Canadian Charter is just the most recent utopian attempt, in a long, futile, and mostly sordid history of attempts, to legislate that which cannot be legislated. Hugh Kingsmill expressed the point admirably in the Introduction to his neglected masterpiece, The Poisoned Crown :
What is divine in man is elusive and impalpable, and he is easily tempted to embody it in a collective form"a church, a country, a social system, a leader, so that he may realize it with less effort and serve it with more profit. Yet . . . the attempt to externalize the Kingdom of Heaven in a temporal form must end in disaster. It cannot be created by charters or constitutions, nor established by arms. Those who set out for it alone will reach it together and those who seek it in company will perish by themselves.
Ian A. Hunter is Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Western Ontario.


text:
Rules and regulations for the beaches of Anna Maria Island are governed by Florida State Law, the code of ordinances of Manatee County plus the additions and modifications within the 3 cities of Anna Maria, Holmes Beach, and Bradenton Beach, that comprise the municipalities of the island.
The beach is considered a 'park' for the purposes of applicable codes and enforcement of rules. Alleys and paths to the beach are included as 'entryways'. Some special rules apply at the county public beach parks Anna Maria Bayfront Park, Coquina Bayside Park, Coquina Gulfside Park, and Manatee Beach Park where there are facilities and areas zoned for specific uses, and lifeguards.
The main regulations include:
- No consumption or possession of alcohol
- No assembly without permit
- No pets except service animals
- No vehicles or bicycles except wheelchairs
- No disturbing or feeding wildlife
- No removal of natural resources
- No littering
- No fires
- No fireworks
- No launching watercraft except surfboards, sailboats, catamarans, kayaks
- No throwing games or propelled objects
- No lights, unattended chairs and cabanas, screens, umbrellas, between sunset and sunrise during turtle nesting season May 1 to October 31.


text:
Driver high on cocaine led police on 100mph chase
A court heard that Jonathan Rutter reached speeds of more than 100mph as he fled from police in the Seat stolen earlier that day in a burglary.
The pursuing officer dropped back fearing for the safety of pedestrians and other drivers and lost sight of him for 10 seconds and then saw debris and smoke.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe had hit a silver Mercedes which had been shunted through a garden wall and up against a house, explained Lianne Birkett, prosecuting.
The police officer later said: "In 18 years in the police service I can honestly say I have never seen anyone drive so dangerously in a police pursuit."
He said he had been seriously concerned for the safety of pedestrians and road users as Rutter drove along Sherwood Road on the Norley Hall estate in Wigan.
He added that if the car had not struck the Mercedes and continued on at a 90 degree angle on to the busy Ormskirk Road "it would have had unthinkable consequences".
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdLiverpool Crown Court heard that 22-year-old Rutter has committed 22 previous offences of "almost every description" and the incident put him in breach of a 10-week suspended sentence imposed for arson.
Recorder Abigail Hudson sentenced him to a total of 31 months, including two months of the suspended sentence, and banned him from driving for 18 months after his release.
"You were seen driving in Wigan clearly under the influence of something and driving like a complete idiot," she said.
She said the crash was inevitable and he "tried to flee but because of drink and your drug addled state you were caught".
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdShe added: "Your pre-sentence report is extremely poor. You displayed arrogance to the author and a complete lack of remorse."
Recorder Hudson said that he had admitted having taken cannabis, amphetamine and crack cocaine.
Miss Birkett had told the court that the offences took place at 11.40am on February 2 this year.
Police officers had reports of someone driving around the Norley Hall Estate and they saw him revving the engine and reversing towards a school.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWhen the officers came across the scene of the accident they found the driver of the Mercedes and his dog, which had been in the back, both badly shaken but fortunately not seriously injured.
When arrested Rutter was found to have a knife with a three and a half inch blade in his pocket.
Rutter, of Swinley Road, Swinley, who appeared via video link from prison, pleaded guilty to driving dangerously and while disqualified and without insurance, handling the stolen car, possessing a knife and possessing drugs.
Martyn Walsh, defending, said Rutter had panicked when he saw the police.


text:
SEAN P on July 6, 2008
KingZombie999 at 4:27PM, Dec. 5, 2011
. . . Want . . . More
aquapermanence at 2:30PM, May 30, 2010
Just finished reading it. Enjoyed the style of the characters and the underwater landscape. Alternating between black and white for outlines and fills gives a strong sense of dimension without overloading the visuals. If I had a complaint, it would be the heavy repetition of images, but the repetition is very appropriate to the tone and pacing. Looking forward to more someday.
jauntx at 8:13PM, Feb. 19, 2010
still dead I see
Polkster at 10:18PM, Jan. 26, 2010
...profound? Maybe after a few bong rips.
leijane at 3:35PM, Jan. 25, 2010
Every page of this is ..art. This captures that inexplicable but breathtaking power of art, its ability to create, destroy, express, withhold - I love it -
Uncle Jo at 5:29PM, Jan. 8, 2010
Your art is amazing! I'm just in awe at every single page!
anonymous at 12:42PM, July 21, 2009
Love the artistic style and story. Well done.
jauntx at 8:59AM, Jan. 22, 2009
is this ever coming back?
worth at 4:35PM, Dec. 1, 2008
Great stuff! I love the white on black sketchy look. And it has an animated quality to it.
anonymous at 6:41PM, Oct. 27, 2008
finally up to date, what an amazing comic. fantastic artwork that brings out the creepy atmosphere you would usually only get from a classic horror.
Brogan at 11:31PM, Aug. 24, 2008
You're still around! Awesomeness.
SEAN P at 4:26PM, Aug. 22, 2008
Be back soon.
SEAN P at 4:26PM, Aug. 22, 2008
If anyone is interested, you can now buy Ahab T-Shirts for guys and girls at this site. And a lot of other cool designs, as well. http://www.threeapparel.com/body.html
carrollhach at 2:40PM, Aug. 18, 2008
Love this, Sean. Totally different style. Just stumbled on it and I'm gld to fave it!
Catya at 12:42PM, Aug. 17, 2008
When does Ahab update again?
TheMidge28 at 10:54AM, July 30, 2008
still here and reading! keep it up!
croxtonhas at 3:41PM, July 23, 2008
worstcase at 6:47PM, July 17, 2008
Oh...I love it.
Crazy Dutchman at 8:31AM, July 7, 2008
Beautiful again.
mattchee at 8:31AM, July 7, 2008
Congrats on the gig... Thanks for continuing AHAB.. love it
cs3ink at 5:36AM, July 7, 2008
Awesome for you! Hope it goes well. Update when you can. I can wait. Barely.
spiritmonkey at 11:44PM, July 6, 2008
0_0 wow
blntmaker at 10:36PM, July 6, 2008
Congrats on the script writing gig at Mr.Men! That kicks a great deal of glutes! This was the first comic I've read in days! NEW AHAB and what's even more fantastic is...you could play Kayne West's "Stronger" during this page and it would fit!


text:
Traffic jams on major roads expected to hit peak in November
Analysis of queues during the 12 months to August found that November 2016 was the worst with almost 170,000 hold-ups - some 50% above average.
The analysis by transport data company Inrix found that drivers faced 1.35 million traffic jams in the past year, costing them an estimated £9 billion in wasted time, fuel and unnecessary carbon emissions.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdInrix chief economist Dr Graham Cookson said: "There are so many factors that influence congestion levels it's hard to be certain why November was the worst month.
"We do know November 2016 was significantly colder than usual, in fact, the coldest month of the calendar year.
"The risk of ice on the road can lead to slower moving traffic and people are more inclined to take shelter in vehicles over cycling or walking in cold snaps."
The worst queue of the year occurred on August 4 on the M5 northbound near Junction 20 near Clevedon, Somerset.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdTraffic tailed back 36 miles at the peak of the 15-hour jam, caused when an accident involving two lorries created a fuel spill and led to the closure of two lanes.
Mr Cookson said: "Fuel spillages, emergency repairs and broken-down lorries contributed to the biggest pile-ups this year.
"We advise motorists use the latest real-time traffic technology to keep up to date with the situation on the roads."


text:
I'm super excited that some of you have expressed interest in making the In the Pantry mini quilt! Totally made my day!
First of all, you'll need to purchase the "In the Pantry" pattern set from Kerry and I's Sew-Ichigo shop. The pattern set is chock full of possibilities. Kerry has come up with 4 variations of the canister jar, and the set also includes my Mama's Pyrex pattern as well as the silverware.
Next, using this diagram, you will sew it together.
A few tips:
1. All the blocks are at 100% unless indicated by the diagram.
2. All seam allowances are 1/4''.
3. Some of the sashing pieces will be slightly bigger than the block they are being sewn to. That is ok. Just trim the sashing pieces down after you've sewn each section. And trim each section as you go.
1. Sew one of each block: mama's pyrex, simple sweet jar, knife, spoon and fork. Sew three simple sweet jars at 75%.
2. Sew sashing A to the top of the mama's pyrex block.
3. Sew sashing B to the top of the largest simple sweet jar.
3. Sew the knife, spoon and fork blocks together as indicated in the diagram, then sew sashing C to the top of the blocks.
4. Sew two of the smaller simple sweet jars together side by side.
5. Sew a 1 1/2'' sashing strip to each side of one of the smaller simple sweet jars.
6. Sew a 1 1/2'' sashing strip to the top of the jar in step 5.
7. Sew the small jar in step 6 to the top of the small jars in step 4.
8. Sew the large jar to the left side of the utensil block.
9. Sew the small stacked jar block to the right side of the utensil block.
10. Sew a 1 1/4'' sashing strip to the bottom and then one to the right of the jar/utensil block
11. Sew the mama's pyrex block to the left of the jar/utensil block.
12. Make a quilt sandwich, quilt using sparkles with Aurifil thread, then bind.
If you make this mini, I'd love to see it! You can tag me on Instagram (I'm @sewtakeahike, and please use the hashtag #sewichigo) and/or you can post it on flickr in the sew-ichigo group here!
Happy Monday!