<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: George Orwell, Eat Your Heart Out</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-19213</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-19213</guid>
		<description>Classical liberalism, yes.  As in TR, Wilson, FDR Truman, JFK, Reagan and Bush II vis a vis international policy. 

sKerry&#039;s liberalism, no.  Ironic now that sKerry seems to be parroting classic isolationism and realpolitik a la Kissenger/Baker/Shultz.  IOW it doesn&#039;t matter how a particular nation is ruled, as long as they like us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Classical liberalism, yes.  As in TR, Wilson, FDR Truman, JFK, Reagan and Bush II vis a vis international policy. </p>
<p>sKerry&#8217;s liberalism, no.  Ironic now that sKerry seems to be parroting classic isolationism and realpolitik a la Kissenger/Baker/Shultz.  IOW it doesn&#8217;t matter how a particular nation is ruled, as long as they like us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-19197</link>
		<dc:creator>actus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-19197</guid>
		<description>&#039;In like manner, Bush&#039;s 2nd Inauguration speech boldly serves to put the moral equivilance crowd on notice. Freedom supercedes peace. IOW, without freedom, there can be no peace from evil.&#039;

I know. Its a great victory for liberal idealism. Too bad its also &#039;no policy shift&#039;.  So coddling of tyrants continues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;In like manner, Bush&#8217;s 2nd Inauguration speech boldly serves to put the moral equivilance crowd on notice. Freedom supercedes peace. IOW, without freedom, there can be no peace from evil.&#8217;</p>
<p>I know. Its a great victory for liberal idealism. Too bad its also &#8216;no policy shift&#8217;.  So coddling of tyrants continues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-19153</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-19153</guid>
		<description>For that matter, give each of the Indians full stewardship of 40 acres and abolish the BLM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For that matter, give each of the Indians full stewardship of 40 acres and abolish the BLM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Slater</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-19146</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Slater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-19146</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d still be willing to give them 40 acres and a mule (or, to be more contemporary, 40 acres and a Jeep Wrangler).  I&#039;d wager that descendants of slaves could manage the land far better than the BLM!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d still be willing to give them 40 acres and a mule (or, to be more contemporary, 40 acres and a Jeep Wrangler).  I&#8217;d wager that descendants of slaves could manage the land far better than the BLM!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-19044</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-19044</guid>
		<description>Oh Actup, your concern for the thousands of Americans killed in the Civil War is touching...

Seems to me that as far as this 16th Commander in Chief was concerned, the war would continue, God willing, until full reparations were made to the slaves, as excepted from his 2nd Inauguration speech.
&quot;&lt;em&gt;If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? 

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmanâ€™s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said â€œthe judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.&lt;/em&gt;â€

In like manner, Bush&#039;s 2nd Inauguration speech boldly serves to put the moral equivilance crowd on notice.  Freedom supercedes peace.  IOW, without freedom, there can be no peace from evil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh Actup, your concern for the thousands of Americans killed in the Civil War is touching&#8230;</p>
<p>Seems to me that as far as this 16th Commander in Chief was concerned, the war would continue, God willing, until full reparations were made to the slaves, as excepted from his 2nd Inauguration speech.<br />
&#8220;<em>If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? </p>
<p>Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmanâ€™s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said â€œthe judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.</em>â€</p>
<p>In like manner, Bush&#8217;s 2nd Inauguration speech boldly serves to put the moral equivilance crowd on notice.  Freedom supercedes peace.  IOW, without freedom, there can be no peace from evil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18999</link>
		<dc:creator>actus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18999</guid>
		<description>&#039;Fort Sumpter was surrounded, leaving the Confederates no option.&#039;

They could have not fired on them. Thats kind of the point.

&#039;The welfare of the slaves was of little concern to the North, and even the Emancipation Proclamation specifically denied emancipation to slaves in the Northern slave states and also Union occupied Southern States.&#039;

Oh I know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;Fort Sumpter was surrounded, leaving the Confederates no option.&#8217;</p>
<p>They could have not fired on them. Thats kind of the point.</p>
<p>&#8216;The welfare of the slaves was of little concern to the North, and even the Emancipation Proclamation specifically denied emancipation to slaves in the Northern slave states and also Union occupied Southern States.&#8217;</p>
<p>Oh I know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Slater</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18994</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Slater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18994</guid>
		<description>Fort Sumpter was surrounded, leaving the Confederates no option.  The Federals were there, incidentaly, no to free slaves, but to COLLECT TARRIFFS.  The welfare of the slaves was of little concern to the North, and even the Emancipation Proclamation specifically denied emancipation to slaves in the Northern slave states and also Union occupied Southern States.

Please DO feel free to construe any of this to mean that I support secession, and not just in 1860.  Have you read the news in the last couple of months?  Hmmm?  I refer to all the rancor of the &quot;red/blue&quot; state controversy in the last election, there are those who not altogether jokingly suggest that those &quot;blue&quot; states ought to secede from the red states.  This primarily from those of the LEFT.

As a resident of a &quot;red&quot; state myself (not to suggest that I wholly support the man that the &#039;red&#039; represents), I would be delighted if the blue states would go, and would not lift a finger to stop them.  I would like to see the day when being governed by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and others would end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fort Sumpter was surrounded, leaving the Confederates no option.  The Federals were there, incidentaly, no to free slaves, but to COLLECT TARRIFFS.  The welfare of the slaves was of little concern to the North, and even the Emancipation Proclamation specifically denied emancipation to slaves in the Northern slave states and also Union occupied Southern States.</p>
<p>Please DO feel free to construe any of this to mean that I support secession, and not just in 1860.  Have you read the news in the last couple of months?  Hmmm?  I refer to all the rancor of the &#8220;red/blue&#8221; state controversy in the last election, there are those who not altogether jokingly suggest that those &#8220;blue&#8221; states ought to secede from the red states.  This primarily from those of the LEFT.</p>
<p>As a resident of a &#8220;red&#8221; state myself (not to suggest that I wholly support the man that the &#8216;red&#8217; represents), I would be delighted if the blue states would go, and would not lift a finger to stop them.  I would like to see the day when being governed by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and others would end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18992</link>
		<dc:creator>actus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18992</guid>
		<description>&#039;Actus, â€œtheyâ€ didnâ€™t declare war on anyone. Many Southrons still refer to the late unpleasantness, even today, as the War of NORTHERN Agression. &#039;

They know how to play the victim, and their civilians certainly were victims of Sherman.  Still don&#039;t change the fact that they killed more americans than bin laden.

Am I wrong, or did they not fire the first shot?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;Actus, â€œtheyâ€ didnâ€™t declare war on anyone. Many Southrons still refer to the late unpleasantness, even today, as the War of NORTHERN Agression. &#8216;</p>
<p>They know how to play the victim, and their civilians certainly were victims of Sherman.  Still don&#8217;t change the fact that they killed more americans than bin laden.</p>
<p>Am I wrong, or did they not fire the first shot?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Slater</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18991</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Slater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18991</guid>
		<description>Ahhh, Andy and Scuzzy.  Good to hear from you again.  I don&#039;t know about Flash, never get much of a chance to use it.  If we remember 1984, it was only those of utmost priviledge who were permitted to turn off the eye, which is why Winston was so shocked when O&#039;Brien turned off his telescreen.

Actus, &quot;they&quot; didn&#039;t declare war on anyone.  Many Southrons still refer to the late unpleasantness, even today, as the War of NORTHERN Agression.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahhh, Andy and Scuzzy.  Good to hear from you again.  I don&#8217;t know about Flash, never get much of a chance to use it.  If we remember 1984, it was only those of utmost priviledge who were permitted to turn off the eye, which is why Winston was so shocked when O&#8217;Brien turned off his telescreen.</p>
<p>Actus, &#8220;they&#8221; didn&#8217;t declare war on anyone.  Many Southrons still refer to the late unpleasantness, even today, as the War of NORTHERN Agression.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18988</link>
		<dc:creator>actus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18988</guid>
		<description>&#039;In a war. When did Lee or Davis or Washington or others load up a train or horse carriage and crash them into civilian targets, without warning or declaration of war? They didnâ€™t. They werenâ€™t terrorists.&#039;

Sherman&#039;s march was pretty awful.  But that wasn&#039;t the rebels doing that, that was the good ole U.S. of A.  And don&#039;t you call our soldiers criminals!

And yes. In a war, thats what i&#039;m talking about: they waged war against the US and killed more Americans than bin laden.  The fact that its a war isn&#039;t an excuse: thats the point of blame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;In a war. When did Lee or Davis or Washington or others load up a train or horse carriage and crash them into civilian targets, without warning or declaration of war? They didnâ€™t. They werenâ€™t terrorists.&#8217;</p>
<p>Sherman&#8217;s march was pretty awful.  But that wasn&#8217;t the rebels doing that, that was the good ole U.S. of A.  And don&#8217;t you call our soldiers criminals!</p>
<p>And yes. In a war, thats what i&#8217;m talking about: they waged war against the US and killed more Americans than bin laden.  The fact that its a war isn&#8217;t an excuse: thats the point of blame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCSIwuzzy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18982</link>
		<dc:creator>SCSIwuzzy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18982</guid>
		<description>In a war.  When did Lee or Davis or Washington or others load up a train or horse carriage and crash them into civilian targets, without warning or declaration of war?  They didn&#039;t.  They weren&#039;t terrorists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a war.  When did Lee or Davis or Washington or others load up a train or horse carriage and crash them into civilian targets, without warning or declaration of war?  They didn&#8217;t.  They weren&#8217;t terrorists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18976</link>
		<dc:creator>actus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18976</guid>
		<description>&quot;If you think Robert Lee, or any other secessionist who put on a uniform and followed rules of war, and bin Laden are equivalent I donâ€™t think there is much left to say.&quot;

I don&#039;t think they&#039;re equivalent. I just think they have killed more americans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If you think Robert Lee, or any other secessionist who put on a uniform and followed rules of war, and bin Laden are equivalent I donâ€™t think there is much left to say.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re equivalent. I just think they have killed more americans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18969</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18969</guid>
		<description>Robin, I&#039;m not from there, but I gooogled &quot;Lee Holiday Mississippi&quot; and came up following info.  

Haley Barbour is the Republican Governor of MS and did proclaim MLK/REL holiday. http://www.governorbarbour.com/ProcHoliday.htm

But wait, there&#039;s more.  

According to the Secretary of State website, http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/Proclamations/King.asp, it would appear that REL&#039;s birthday was originally &amp; officially commemorated by the Legislature in 2003.  So the legislature is a bunch of racists?

Well, hold on, what Russell left out in his rant is that the whole backstory is not so clear, so let&#039;s walk the cat.

According to the citation of authority for MLK/REL comes from &quot;Section 3-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972&quot;.  Since Democrat Ronnie Musgrove was MS Governor, the 2003 MLK/REL holiday is therefore by his authority.

When further investigating Section 3-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972, we find it was amended in 1997.  Kirk Fordyce was the Republican Governor of MS in 1997 when the code was revised by the Legislature to add the following (empasis theirs):
&lt;em&gt;(2) In lieu of any one (1) legal holiday provided for in subsection (1) of this section, &lt;strong&gt;with the exception of the third Monday in January (Robert E. Lee&#039;s and Martin Luther King, Jr.&#039;s, birthday)&lt;/strong&gt;, the governing authorities of any municipality or county may declare, by order spread upon its minutes, Mardi Gras Day &lt;strong&gt;or any one (1) other day during the year, to be a legal holiday&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/em&gt;

The document makes reference to &quot;approved February 11, 1993&quot;, so let&#039;s see what changed in 1993.  Hmm, can&#039;t seem to Google it except for one site that is password protected and apparently intended for MS Lawyers, so let&#039;s try LexisNexis.  Hmm, nothing there either.  Rather than being some kind of vast conspiracy, I think that documents that have been superceded and are that old, just have been digitized yet.  So we&#039;re stuck with the 1972 annotated and 97 versions.  So let&#039;s look at 1972, annotated:
&lt;em&gt;(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the following are declared to be legal holidays, viz: the first day of January (New Year&#039;s Day); the third Monday of January (Robert E. Lee&#039;s birthday and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.&#039;s birthday); the third Monday of February (Washington&#039;s birthday); the last Monday of April (Confederate Memorial Day); the last Monday of May (National Memorial Day and Jefferson Davis&#039; birthday); the fourth day of July (Independence Day); the first Monday of September (Labor Day); the eleventh day of November (Armistice or Veterans&#039; Day); the day fixed by proclamation by the Governor of Mississippi as a day of Thanksgiving, which shall be fixed to correspond to the date proclaimed by the President of the United States (Thanksgiving Day); and the twenty-fifth day of December (Christmas Day). In the event any holiday hereinbefore declared legal shall fall on Sunday, then the next following day shall be a legal holiday.

(2) In lieu of any one (1) legal holiday provided for in subsection (1) of this section, the governing authorities of any municipality or county may declare, by order spread upon its minutes, Mardi Gras Day to be a legal holiday.&lt;/em&gt;

So it would seem that somewhere between 1972 and 1993, MLK was added in.  As for REL, I don&#039;t know.  Odds are he&#039;s always been around, seeing how Confederate Memorial &amp; Jefferson Davis gets one as well.

Ultimately, much ado over feigned indignation.  If we forget the players in the Civil War, we risk forgetting why we fought.  So let all the memorials and statues remain, lest we forget and repeat history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robin, I&#8217;m not from there, but I gooogled &#8220;Lee Holiday Mississippi&#8221; and came up following info.  </p>
<p>Haley Barbour is the Republican Governor of MS and did proclaim MLK/REL holiday. <a href="http://www.governorbarbour.com/ProcHoliday.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.governorbarbour.com/ProcHoliday.htm</a></p>
<p>But wait, there&#8217;s more.  </p>
<p>According to the Secretary of State website, <a href="http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/Proclamations/King.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/Proclamations/King.asp</a>, it would appear that REL&#8217;s birthday was originally &#038; officially commemorated by the Legislature in 2003.  So the legislature is a bunch of racists?</p>
<p>Well, hold on, what Russell left out in his rant is that the whole backstory is not so clear, so let&#8217;s walk the cat.</p>
<p>According to the citation of authority for MLK/REL comes from &#8220;Section 3-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972&#8243;.  Since Democrat Ronnie Musgrove was MS Governor, the 2003 MLK/REL holiday is therefore by his authority.</p>
<p>When further investigating Section 3-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972, we find it was amended in 1997.  Kirk Fordyce was the Republican Governor of MS in 1997 when the code was revised by the Legislature to add the following (empasis theirs):<br />
<em>(2) In lieu of any one (1) legal holiday provided for in subsection (1) of this section, <strong>with the exception of the third Monday in January (Robert E. Lee&#8217;s and Martin Luther King, Jr.&#8217;s, birthday)</strong>, the governing authorities of any municipality or county may declare, by order spread upon its minutes, Mardi Gras Day <strong>or any one (1) other day during the year, to be a legal holiday</strong>. </em></p>
<p>The document makes reference to &#8220;approved February 11, 1993&#8243;, so let&#8217;s see what changed in 1993.  Hmm, can&#8217;t seem to Google it except for one site that is password protected and apparently intended for MS Lawyers, so let&#8217;s try LexisNexis.  Hmm, nothing there either.  Rather than being some kind of vast conspiracy, I think that documents that have been superceded and are that old, just have been digitized yet.  So we&#8217;re stuck with the 1972 annotated and 97 versions.  So let&#8217;s look at 1972, annotated:<br />
<em>(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the following are declared to be legal holidays, viz: the first day of January (New Year&#8217;s Day); the third Monday of January (Robert E. Lee&#8217;s birthday and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.&#8217;s birthday); the third Monday of February (Washington&#8217;s birthday); the last Monday of April (Confederate Memorial Day); the last Monday of May (National Memorial Day and Jefferson Davis&#8217; birthday); the fourth day of July (Independence Day); the first Monday of September (Labor Day); the eleventh day of November (Armistice or Veterans&#8217; Day); the day fixed by proclamation by the Governor of Mississippi as a day of Thanksgiving, which shall be fixed to correspond to the date proclaimed by the President of the United States (Thanksgiving Day); and the twenty-fifth day of December (Christmas Day). In the event any holiday hereinbefore declared legal shall fall on Sunday, then the next following day shall be a legal holiday.</p>
<p>(2) In lieu of any one (1) legal holiday provided for in subsection (1) of this section, the governing authorities of any municipality or county may declare, by order spread upon its minutes, Mardi Gras Day to be a legal holiday.</em></p>
<p>So it would seem that somewhere between 1972 and 1993, MLK was added in.  As for REL, I don&#8217;t know.  Odds are he&#8217;s always been around, seeing how Confederate Memorial &#038; Jefferson Davis gets one as well.</p>
<p>Ultimately, much ado over feigned indignation.  If we forget the players in the Civil War, we risk forgetting why we fought.  So let all the memorials and statues remain, lest we forget and repeat history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18952</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18952</guid>
		<description>SCSIwuzzy, I concur.  That we have the right and duty to revolt against our government in the event that absolute power has absolutely corrupted the powers that be was intentionally designed into our founding documents.  In fact, one of our founding fathers thot a revolution might be necessary every generation or two.

The moonbat movers and shakers know that, hence the long-range attempts to strip away local power, and stack the 1st, 2nd, 4th and other amendments against those who would conserve our values and principles.

Within that context, slavery notwithstanding, Jefferson Davis &amp; Robert E. Lee, among others (not all), were honorable men and disagreed/fought by the rules.  

Ironic that if the MSM was around, they&#039;d be harping that the North was fighting a lost cause and Lincoln lied and that we should just cede the South up to the &quot;insurgents&quot; &amp; &quot;freedom fighters&quot;.  

Note that also up until the Civil War, the US was always refered to in the plural (emp on States), afterwards in the singular (emp on United).  That was a major shift in the prevailing meme.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SCSIwuzzy, I concur.  That we have the right and duty to revolt against our government in the event that absolute power has absolutely corrupted the powers that be was intentionally designed into our founding documents.  In fact, one of our founding fathers thot a revolution might be necessary every generation or two.</p>
<p>The moonbat movers and shakers know that, hence the long-range attempts to strip away local power, and stack the 1st, 2nd, 4th and other amendments against those who would conserve our values and principles.</p>
<p>Within that context, slavery notwithstanding, Jefferson Davis &#038; Robert E. Lee, among others (not all), were honorable men and disagreed/fought by the rules.  </p>
<p>Ironic that if the MSM was around, they&#8217;d be harping that the North was fighting a lost cause and Lincoln lied and that we should just cede the South up to the &#8220;insurgents&#8221; &#038; &#8220;freedom fighters&#8221;.  </p>
<p>Note that also up until the Civil War, the US was always refered to in the plural (emp on States), afterwards in the singular (emp on United).  That was a major shift in the prevailing meme.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin Munn</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/comment-page-2/#comment-18951</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin Munn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/18/george/#comment-18951</guid>
		<description>Still curious: anyone here from Mississippi, or any other states where Lee&#039;s birthday is officially commemorated? What was the commemoration date this year: yesterday (his actual birthday), or Monday (coinciding with MLK day)?

If it was the latter, then Russell&#039;s unstated &quot;Mississippi is still racist&quot; argument might have some merit; but if it was the former, then his unstated argument fails entirely. I&#039;d like to get some actual data, if anyone has any to provide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Still curious: anyone here from Mississippi, or any other states where Lee&#8217;s birthday is officially commemorated? What was the commemoration date this year: yesterday (his actual birthday), or Monday (coinciding with MLK day)?</p>
<p>If it was the latter, then Russell&#8217;s unstated &#8220;Mississippi is still racist&#8221; argument might have some merit; but if it was the former, then his unstated argument fails entirely. I&#8217;d like to get some actual data, if anyone has any to provide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

