just as full sized cars should NOT park in compact spaces when there are full size spots open, compacts should do the same.

Actually, this is not true. Having just had to deal with a bunch pf inspectors when the company put in our parking lot, I can tell you that "compact" spaces are marked that way only because the length of a larger car would make the driving lane too small and that's why you notice them near the ends of lanes or near poles or whatever. A place only has to put a "compact" sign on spaces which fall under the limit, and you can have an entire lot with no compact spaces in it, like a lot of older lots--so in that case compact cars would have nowhere to park if they looked for labels. Anyone can park anywhere, but bigger cars are supposed to avoid parking in areas which make it dangerous. However, real estate is expensive and business owners are cheap, so they try to finagle as many spaces into each lot as they can, which means more compact only spots and a harder time for big cars.

Clive Owen would shoot the horses to get us out. IJS.

Oh -- something else I need explained -- this anti-lynching kerfuffle. Am I to understand that there was anti-lynching legislation that never got passed because people were being racist dickheads, and that is what's being apologised for?

What was this legislation? Was it to make lynching more illegal than murder? Was it proto-hate crime legislation?

There was an anti-lynching resolution, that passed on a voice vote, so we don't get to see who, if anyone voted against it.

However, there were around 85 co-sponsors to the bill, which means that there are 15 Senators or so that refused to sign a bill condemning lynching.

ETA: The bill was a resolution apologizing for all the lynchings that happened in the USA.

Was it proto-hate crime legislation?

Kind of. It (eta: actually, they, there were several bills introduced, none passed) would've made lynching prosecutable by the federal gov't (as murder is not) if it wasn't prosecuted by the state in which it occurred. As I understand it.

Okay, but why does lynching need to be condemned? Not ethically, I mean, because it's horrendous. Legally, why does it need to be condemned? Was it "just" people putting their names down on paper saying they were opposed? No changes to the law? And folks back then (and still some now now) won't go on record?

The bill was a resolution apologizing for all the lynchings that happened in the USA.

Wait, so you mean now, not then? I'm curious about what they're apologising about not having done, but I think -t has cleared that up some.

There's a detailed look at the resolution here.

You say Viggo, but what about when he sees the perfect sunset and needs to stop to paint it in watercolour?

Viggo knocked a thrown knife away with a sword on his first day on the set. Viggo's got skills and excellent eye-hand.

Is this the legislation (or a notable example thereof) whose blocking is being apologised for:

The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill provided fines and imprisonment for persons convicted of lynching in federal courts, and fines and penalties against states, counties, and towns which failed to use reasonable efforts to protect citizens from mob violence. It was killed in the Senate by the filibuster of the Southern senators who claimed that anti-lynching legislation would be unconstitutional and an infringement upon states’ rights.

Viggo knocked a thrown knife away with a sword on his first day on the set.

I can't believe I'm the one who wants to be rescued by sane people. Ruthless, sure. Sane? Please.