January 20, 2004

• It's at times like this that I wish I knew who came up with that wonderful definition of "insanity"- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. guh.
• I should mention. Said nutso is running for congress. Motivation? Oh and this just in: the monument will be removed http://www.nbc17.com/news/2777063/detail.html
• I'm personally in favor of putting up Dr. Seuss monuments everywhere.
• You mean Dr. Zaius. Don't you Spooky? Don't call for the wrath of the monkey...
• Demagogue: 1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. 2. A leader of the common people in ancient times. Ambrosia, some idiot came up with that one.
• Dr. Zaius!
• Great Cthulhu will eat him last.
• Thanks vapidave! *Drills into head* ouch!
• A monument? To me? Oh, my dears, you're too kind...
• I like how he put the Bill of Rights on the other side to raise the stakes a little bit. That 'monument' is $2000 worth of publicity that would be cheap at twice the price.
• This, like the other case, is really pretty simple. He put it up without permission. Case closed. It doesn't matter what it is, it is there without permission. End of story. I gaurantee that if any of us, as private citizens put something in a governement building it would be hauled off in less than 24 hours. Let's not let the content of the thing make us ignore the fact that he did this without permission
• Having permission or not having permission isn't the issue here or in the original case. The issue is that the Constitution expressly forbids government promotion of religion. Displays of the Ten Commandments have survived challenge in situations where they are displayed in a "historical context" with other "historical" documents- for example, the Code of Hammurabi, The Magna Carta, etc. In the situation at hand, however, case law is very clear. It was doomed from the start, and therefore almost certainly a publicity stunt aimed at drumming up electoral support from the conservative Christians in the state. dirtdirt hit the nail on the head. Besides, in this day and age of "Homeland Security", if a private citizen were to "leave something" in a government building, that private citizen would probably be hauled off for an unpleasant interview with the FBI and who knows who else. /derail/
• I have to disagree. It was made into an issue of religion and seperation of church and state. That is missing the larger issue that is undeniable. No one game these people permission to put these things on public property. The only reason there is any debate is becasue of the religious component. If, as someone had suggested earlier, someone had put up a statue of Dr. Seuss it would have been taken away because it was put up without permission. That same standard should apply to anything regardless of what it is. The issue of permission is a larger and much easier to answer issue than that of religion. That is why I say that religion isn't really the issue that we should focus on. No one can deny that the monuments were put up without permission, therefore on those grounds, there is no debate whether or not they should stay. To get into the seperation of church and state is to give validity to the publicity stunt. In this newest case, however, it doesn't really matter, they already removed it citing safety concerns.
• One of the things, politically, I've always admired most about America is that, in such a deeply religious country, government, schooling etc were kept separate from religion, even if only officially. The strange thing is in Britain (well, I can only speak of England, and it might well only apply to England - Northern Ireland is obviously insanely religious, and religiously divided, and Scotland, or at least Glasgow and its football supporters, are too), where most schools have religious (Christian, Church of England) assemblies every morning, and the Queen is the head of state, and the head of the state Church, no one actually seems to be particularly religious. A British Prime Minister would never risk saying "God bless, Great Britain" at the end of a speech, for example.
• Really? Strange that. I dunno, I'm an agnostic and people invoking God or Who/Whatever (in the case of Cthulhu who I always want to spell Cthulthu) seems basically the same thing as someone saying "Good Luck to Great Britain" in the example above. I guess I could see it on an equal time point of view, and with so many Britains registering as Jedis the occasional speech would almost have to end with "And may The Force be with you.
• I would like Tony Blair to end every speech with "Live long and prosper", to be honest.
• Live long and prosper Well, it is logical.