:)

Thanks for that information! You obviously know a LOT more about it than I do!

Here's hoping for the correct outcome.

No, I don't. I've just seen this happen in other court cases that were decided based on some kind of procedural problem.

Like...."OK, if you don't like us doing it THIS way, we will do it THAT way."

It may turn out that if the Court blocks the current student debt relief, it will say........ "... because something something something" and the Biden Administration can overcome that objection just by doing it a different way.

If this happens, I'm guessing the Biden Administration will find another way to find debt relief for students. It could be just a procedural matter that needs to be done differently.

Oh, absolutely! We all have so many things swirling around our heads that when something comes up that you need to remember -- write it down! Stop whatever you are doing and WRITE IT DOWN. You will be glad later.

I don't disagree with anything you have written - except - that "outliers among the Western world" when there were still slaves in the Caribbean islands and elsewhere in Central and South America.

Yes, he was deported during the war. But BEFORE the war and BEFORE the states seceded, he supported allowing them to secede which was NOT treasonous.

Basically, Lincoln made the decision to not let the states secede. He was determined to hold the country together. He declared that anyone who spoke against the war would be arrested. Was this an overstep on his part? Kind of like the Patriot Act of recent years. Not allowed to speak out against the war because that was considered "treason." I am not saying it was a wrong thing to do -- just saying it's worth a debate or discussion.

The point I am trying to make is that rather than focus on Vallandigham's support of slavery and the South or focus on his shooting himself in court, to focus on the whole swirl of breaking the union and people's right to express their opinions about it (or not) and how that played out.

In the 1860's, slavery was viewed by many people as an amoral practice. But not 100%. Be realistic. Just like there are racists today, there were people who thought that it was OK because they were "taken care of" and introduced to Christianity. As more information became available about the actual conditions of slaves and slavery laws, more people were against it.

The slave trade was abolished in the US in 1808. In other words, no slaves could legally be imported into the US after that. But prior to that time, New England ship captains were definitely involved.

I think that mostly, the rich Southern plantation owners just wanted to be left alone so they could continue doing what they were doing. And that is...... raising cotton (mostly) and selling it and making money.

"Moral outlier?" Hm. Along with the destruction of Native Americans, I guess. Done by the Federal Government.

No need to get your knickers in a twist. We are just having a discussion here.

No, it wouldn't be. Because this was before the Confederacy was formed. This was just during the time that the southern states were pissed off and TALKING about seceding. And some people felt.... "Well, just go ahead and good riddance."

We are not having any kind of discussion about the Confederacy or slavery or any of that. Yes slavery is abhorrent but there were many people who supported it. Mainly because they didn't know any better.
It was lucrative for many people, not just the southern slave owners but the New England boat captains who brought the slaves from Africa or from the Caribbean. And you have to remember that at that time in history, people did consider Africans to be sub-human and felt that teaching them about Christianity would be good for them. Yes, it was fucked up thinking - but - you cannot look at something that happened in 1860 through today's lens.

Is it? Keep in mind...... this was around 1850's and the country was only 70 years old, more or less. There were only 30 states. They were still trying to find their way between Federal and State powers.

There were members in Congress who felt that the Southern states should just be allowed to go their own way. (Mostly this was to avoid a civil war.)

So a young country, not fully formed and with strong differences between the states.

If, say, Texas wanted to secede from today's United States and you said..."I think that's a good idea!" - would that be treasonous?

There was nothing illegal about supporting the right of the Confederacy to secede. But yes, he did do some pretty awful things.

I just think that reading it will give people an interesting window into the way things were happening during that time.

As I said, it's about a LOT more than "he shot himself in the courtroom."

I didn't say he was right or wrong, I said it was an interesting read about First Amendment rights in the time of war - something that had never come up before and the Supreme Court got involved.

Another interesting part -- he left the Confederacy and went to Canada. He campaigned for election in Ohio and was nominated by the Democratic Party - even though he was living in Canada - but lost the election.

It was a messy time.

This is definitely worth a read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

It's more about free speech and what rights people have during war time than "he shot himself in the courtroom." It's very interesting to read the back and forth about whether a President has the right to revoke free speech during a time of war.

I guess I'll have to look somewhere else for details on this story.

Where did this happen? Who was involved? Why did the kids need saving? What did he do to save them? Why is he now in intensive care --- what about the saving of the kids caused him to have problems? Yay journalism.

Edit: Ok. Happened at a beach in Pensacola.

One story says he was rescued out of the water which is puzzling since he saved the kids would mean he brought them to shore? Possibly during the rescue, he took in a lot of water which caused him problems.

All speculation until some real journalism kicks in.

Anyway, hoping like hell that he recoveres with no after effects.

Right on, brother! (Or sister.....)

I don't know what that filler is - but - you can use almost any kind of paint. Understand that it won't be exactly like the rest of the wall.

First, clean it up and get rid of the more obvious lumps.

Then use a good primer - Kilz is one of them but there are others.

After that is good and dry, apply your top coat. To help it blend in somewhat with the existing paint, use your brush to lightly feather it into the old paint. The paint that you use should be the same as the old paint - that is, whether it's oil-based or latex and whether it's flat or semi-gloss.

Good luck!

The big three:

Diet, exercise and keep sharp mentally. For keeping sharp mentally, think about doing puzzles or games - especially word puzzles.

This may be helpful: https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-disease-prevention

Reading the headline, I thought "Well, why shouldn't a single stud be able to hold a 13kg TV?" thinking that "stud" referred to a guy. AHHAhahaha......

That works! And a good idea.

Yeah, I think it's important to do a quick rinse or soak. As you say, makes cleanup a LOT easier.

This works! I do something similar when facing dirty dishes.

I tell myself: "OK, just wash 5 pieces." Start washing and next thing I know, it's all done! haha

I don't think you need to put on poly. With the good work you've already done and a high-quality paint, the cabinets will be easy to clean and last a long time. Furniture takes more of a beating and understandable why people might put a coat of poly over paint.

One thing you might do that will help.... after letting the paint cure for about a week. use a good furniture polish on the cabinets. This will help repel any grime or wetness.