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.

Just because Viggo is a poet/artist/actor who was once married to a punk rocker and...

Nah. I got nothing. But sometimes, crazy can be an asset. Plus, he can ride horses, which is better than shooting them.

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.

I kind of doubt there are senators who will approve of lynching, or who depend on the KKK vote. Jon Kyl says it's his practice not to sign on these non-binding "sense of the Senate" bills. That sounds appropriate to me. I'm not very impressed with this particular politicking. It's a little late for it.

Plus, he can ride horses, which is better than shooting them.

Tell that to Mal.

I'm a little confused (and fairly uninformed about the workings of government, I admit). "Not sponsoring" here seems to be used as synonymous with "opposing" -- what's the deal with that? Do people generally sign on as sponsors if they support something?