I was walking home earlier and spotted this awesome parking job. I can’t believe someone would actually leave their car parked like that.
| FRONT PAGE |
GEOSPATIAL ART |
DC HISTORY / TIMELINE |
NEWS |
COLONIST |
FOUND MAPS |
FRACTALS |
|
PHOTOGRAPHY |
ANTIQUE |
DESIGN |
VIDEO |
|
CONTACT |
Now that is a parking job…
|| 2/19/2011 || 11:21 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
I was walking home earlier and spotted this awesome parking job. I can’t believe someone would actually leave their car parked like that.
Chemtrails Over DC
|| 2/15/2011 || 3:14 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
Although planes cannot fly directly over DC, those planes that fly around DC still have their exhaust lines float over the city. I took this photograph because I thought it was interesting the way the lines cut up the sky.
DC Colonist Cartoon: “Election Day” – Washington Star, November 4th, 1924
|| 2/13/2011 || 11:16 am || + Render A Comment || ||
Brief Media Recap of the Townhall Meeting on the District’s Medical Cannabis Program
|| 2/11/2011 || 10:06 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
Before the town hall forum, I was interviewed by Mike Conneen of TBD/WJLA in Adams Morgan.
When we arrived to setup the town hall, DC Fox 5 was already waiting for us. I was interviewed for the segment:
Overall, I would say the town hall meeting was a success. Hopefully the law gets implemented soon.
[UPCOMING] 02/10/11 – Town Hall Meeting on the Implementation of the District of Columbia’s Medical Cannabis Program
|| 1/19/2011 || 10:41 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
As you may remember, I helped organize a similar town hall meeting a little over one year ago. The week after the previous town hall meeting, the District Council introduced amendments to Initiative 59 that substantially altered what was originally approved by District voters over 10 years ago. In May of last year, the District Council approved these new amendments, in July Congress approved the amendments, and starting in August the previous Mayor’s office began drafting regulations to implement the medical cannabis program. Today we are waiting for the Mayor to sign off on the final proposed regulations and begin implementing this important program. In my work with the DC Patients’ Cooperative, I’ve been involved in every step of the process and I’m looking forward to helping host the upcoming town hall meeting. We filled the entire venue last year, so please RSVP.
Thursday, February 10th at 7:00 pm in Pierce Hall at All Souls Unitarian Church located at 16th and Harvard Streets, NW in Ward One of Washington, DC.
The District of Columbia Patients’ Cooperative (DCPC), a non-profit corporation that formed one year ago to provide high quality and affordable cannabis ‘marijuana’ to qualifying DC patients will host a town hall meeting on the implementation of the District of Columbia’s medical cannabis program.
The aim of the meeting is to provide residents with a better understanding of the laws and regulations that were drafted over the last year. The meeting will cover different topics ranging from how the patient registration process will work to the rules surrounding the cultivation and dispensing of the medicine.
The town hall meeting is open to the public and will take place on Thursday, February 10th at 7:00 pm in Pierce Hall at All Souls Unitarian Church located at 16th and Harvard Streets, NW in Washington, DC.
Confirmed Panelist: Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans For Safe Access
Invited Panelists: Councilmembers Jim Graham, David Catania, Phil Mendelson, & Michael A. Brown, a representative from the Mayor’s office, and a representative from the DC Department of Health.
WHO: DC Patients’ Cooperative, invited panelists, and members of the public
WHAT: Town Hall Meeting on DC’s Medical Cannabis Program
WHEN: Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm
WHERE: Pierce Hall in All Souls Unitarian Church, 16th and Harvard Streets, NW, Washington, DC
Click here to download a PDF of the e-flyer
We hope you can attend!
A LETTER FROM DISCOVER CARD FOR THE STATE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENTS
|| 12/22/2010 || 10:29 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
Dear Discover Card,
I know its weird that you are given the option to put “District of Columbia” in the field that lists all of the other states in America, but unless a constitutional amendment is passed or Congress votes to admit the District of Columbia as a State, your faux-IRS looking letter is marginally insulting….
this graphic was altered by the removal my street address
This arrived in the mail in the middle of November and I recently got around to scanning this piece of usury awesomeness.
And no, I have zero intentions of taking out a line of credit with 29.9% APR, but thank you very much for the offer. I might, however, take Discover Card up on the offer when the District of Columbia residents become equal to Americans of the Several States…
Map of the Ratification of the 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution
|| 12/4/2010 || 2:53 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
The 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution allows residents of the District of Columbia to vote for the President, but denies them any representation in Congress.
The Twenty-third Amendment was sent to the States on June 17, 1960 and was ratified by 3/4’s of the State Legislatures on March 29, 1961, which was faster than the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment.
The following states ratified the amendment: 1. Hawaii (June 23, 1960) 2. Massachusetts (August 22, 1960) 3. New Jersey (December 19, 1960) 4. New York (January 17, 1961) 5. California (January 19, 1961) 6. Oregon (January 27, 1961) 7. Maryland (January 30, 1961) 8. Idaho (January 31, 1961) 9. Maine (January 31, 1961) 10. Minnesota (January 31, 1961) 11. New Mexico (February 1, 1961) 12. Nevada (February 2, 1961) 13. Montana (February 6, 1961) 14. South Dakota (February 6, 1961) 15. Colorado (February 8, 1961) 16. Washington (February 9, 1961) 17. West Virginia (February 9, 1961) 18. Alaska (February 10, 1961) 19. Wyoming (February 13, 1961) 20. Delaware (February 20, 1961) 21. Utah (February 21, 1961) 22. Wisconsin (February 21, 1961) 23. Pennsylvania (February 28, 1961) 24. Indiana (March 3, 1961) 25. North Dakota (March 3, 1961) 26. Tennessee (March 6, 1961) 27. Michigan (March 8, 1961) 28. Connecticut (March 9, 1961) 29. Arizona (March 10, 1961) 30. Illinois (March 14, 1961) 31. Nebraska (March 15, 1961) 32. Vermont (March 15, 1961) 33. Iowa (March 16, 1961) 34. Missouri (March 20, 1961) 35. Oklahoma (March 21, 1961) 36. Rhode Island (March 22, 1961) 37. Kansas (March 29, 1961) 38. Ohio (March 29, 1961) |
The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states: 1. New Hampshire (March 30, 1961) 2. Alabama (April 16, 2002) The New Hampshire ratification was somewhat irregular; a vote for ratification was taken on March 29, 1961 but was immediately rescinded. On that same day Kansas and Ohio ratified the amendment making New Hampshire’s second vote that was taken on the following day unnecessary for enactment. The amendment was rejected by the following state: The following states have not ratified the amendment: |
Related 23rd Amendment Entries:
+ MORE
TO ASK FULL PRIVILEGES IN D.C. SUFFRAGE by Bill Price – The Washington Times, April 10, 1919
|| 11/22/2010 || 2:48 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
TO ASK FULL PRIVILEGES IN D.C. SUFFRAGE – Pleas For Mouthful Portions of Justice Give Way to Demand For Full Meal. By Bill Price, The Washington Times, April 10, 1919
The confident opinion, expressed in all parts of Washington, that Congress will at no distant date provide the machinery for suffrage in the District is leading civic leaders here to the conclusion that nothing will be gained by laying before the national legislators a minimum program; that Congress will be inclined to liberality when it acts and will give the people here a maximum of the rights that go with the suffrage of free Americans.
A number of leading officials of citizens’ associations who have been discussing this subject recently in the light of the strongly developing sentiment in Congress for suffrage here have about come to the conclusion that Congress should be asked grant full voting privileges except in such matters as the Constitution reserves to Congress, especially as to exclusive legislation over this slice of Federal Territory.
In halting, hesitating fashion many advocates of suffrage in the District have for a long time recommended asking for a mouthful of justice at a time instead of A WHOLE MEAL. In this manner there would come to Washington citizens in the course another fifteen or twenty years about half the suffrage rights now accorded to other Americans.
T. J. Donovan, the capable head of the Central Citizens’ Association, has recently been going into this subject in detail with other civic leaders, including Theodore Noyes, chairman of central suffrage committee, named by various civic organizations many months ago.
“A very large number of citizens who have expressed their ideas of local suffrage in my presence lately are very definite in their convictions,” said Mr. Donovan today, “that while they recognize it as axiomatic that for all time we must maintain a Federal status in the District, with exclusive right in Congress to legislate, they have no difficulty in harmonizing this with their right to choose the members of the Board of Commissioners of the District, the Board of Education, the Board of Children’s Guardians, the Public Utilities Commission and kindred other administrative officers. None of them can see good reasons why doing of this would conflict in the least with authority of Congress to retain legislative control over the District.
“The President of the United States is really too busy to be compelled to pass upon the qualifications of men for administrative officers, and it is reasonable to assume that all men chosen by the electorate would work in harmony with Congress.”
Mr. Donovan is convinced that the time has come to stop supplication for representation in the Senate and House and the Electoral College for the District. The question, as he sees it, should be submitted to Congress as a demand from American citizens who have done their share in every activity of peace and war, and whose records in money and men given to the Government for the war with Germany were better than those of a number of States of the Union.
“I am confident that when American citizens outside the District comprehend the status of the people here they will absolutely demand that their Senators and Congressmen correct the injustice so long done to the people of this city,” went on Mr. Donovan. “Therefore I say that the time for that justice is close at hand, and that we should ask for all that we are entitled to rather than humbly asking for a bit of legislation at a time.
“Our trouble in the past, and that is now being overcome through the co-operation of all citizens, is that the citizens of the States were not aware of the fact that to be a citizen of the Federal Capital carried with it the stigma of forfeiture of every right our forefathers fought and died for, and which our sons and brothers went overseas and laid down their lives for.
“When they ascertain that the principle of self-determination is to be made by the peace conference to apply to dozens of little nations in Europe and not to the enlightened citizens of the city of Washington, they will have something effective to say. All indications we now have are that they are already beginning to say it.
“Seventeen thousand District boys went into the army to fight for democracy; the more than 400,000 citizens who were left behind exceeded the same number of people in any other part of the United States in Liberty bond and war stamp subscriptions. Thus measuring up to the every demand of their Government, meeting every crisis like real men, is there any longer opposition to Washington people being given the same right of self-determination as the Turk, the Bulgarian, the Greek, Rumanian, Serb, and others?”
This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article on Chronicling America. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Suffrage Bill – The President’s Veto — The New York Times, January 8, 1867
|| 11/17/2010 || 8:29 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
The argument with which President Johnson supports his veto of the District of Columbia Suffrage Bill will not convert Congress or the country to his views. His denial of the right of Congress to legislate for the District is so flatly opposed to the terms of the Constitution, and the ground upon which aid for District projects has always been invoked, that it amounts to little. The provision of the Constitution empowering Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District, and the fact that its citizens have never claimed the rights which the President now asserts in their behalf, are conclusive against him. The plea that the citizens of the District possess, “as an organized community, the same popular rights as the inhabitants of a State or Territory,” is sustained neither by theory nor usage. Congress has, indeed, conceded certain municipal privileges; but its power to legislate in all matters pertaining to the District has not been disputed by people or President until now.
Certain it is that this message will not induce the surrender by Congress of the authority under which it regulates the suffrage in the Federal District. The right by which it legislates for the District on the other questions embraces the right to legislate on this question, with exclusive reference to the wishes and requirements of the States represented in the Capitol. And nothing is more clear than the fact that the States whose verdict has recently been pronounced are in favor of solving in the District, experimentally, one of the many problems which grow out of the altered relations of the colored people. The pending Constitutional Amendment indirectly encourages the enfranchisement of the freedmen in every State, North and South. It diminishes everywhere the basis of representation to the extent of the number of those who are excluded from the franchise because of race or color; so affirming, indirectly, the principle of impartial suffrage, while recognizing the absolute right of each State to determine the standard of suffrage for itself. What more proper than that the application of the principle should begin in the District whose public concerns are specially subject to the control of Congress?
The president dwells upon the opposition of the majority of the white residents in the District to any scheme of negro enfranchisement. This opposition, however, has never assumed the form of a denial of the Congressional right to legislate in the premises. They are too conscious of the substantial benefits accrue continually from the guardianship of Congress, to impugn its authority in the matter of the franchise. As for the rest, Congress is the judge of what is proper and expedient. And nothing could be more obviously proper than that the Congress which has decreed the civil status of the negro should also affirm his political equality as a citizen, so far as it is subject to the national legislation. In affirming this, Congress simply obeys the will of the majority of the American people, whose utterances the President continues to disregard.
There may be room for doubt as to the expediency of acting on the principle of universal enfranchisement. We should have preferred the application of some test of fitness, whether intelligence or property or taxation, to be enforced alike against black and white. So that the right to vote be shared impartially, irrespective of color, the great point would seem to be gained. Congress has thought differently, however; and as between universal suffrage and the entire exclusion of the freedmen because of color, the Republican Party cannot hesitate in its choice.
The President quotes from MADISON, JEFFERSON, STORY AND KENT in support of his course. But the citations from the writings of these eminent men really have no direct bearing upon the point at issue. They vindicate the value of the veto power and the right of the Executive to exert it; but as neither is disputed the appositeness of the passages reproduced is not very apparent.
The right to veto is as valid as the right of Congress to pass the bill over the veto, and no more so. The debatable part of the question relates to the arguments by which the position of each is upheld. And we apprehend that in this case the popular judgment will be on the side of Congress, and against the President.
This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article from the New York Times. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.
©2004-2023 Nikolas R. Schiller - Colonist of the District of Columbia - Privacy Policy - Fair Use - RSS - Contact
YouTube Video of Congressman Serrano speaking on the House floor about the need for Congress to respect DC
|| 2/16/2011 || 3:19 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
Basically Congressman says that other Congressmen experiment on the citizens of the District of Columbia because they cannot do the same types of experiments on their own constituents.
Thank you Congressman Serrano for speaking up for the 600,000 American citizens of the District of Columbia.