So Playboy is looking for Wal-Mart employees to pose for an upcoming issue. That's going to be gross...
In real news, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has put up a ruling to block California's recall election. If it stands, we'll have to wait until March before the election happens. But we're also talking about what is arguably the most liberal court around -- these are the same guys that ruled "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Because of their typical knee-jerk judgments, the 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court, so who knows if this will stand.
Posted by Rick at September 16, 2003 09:43 AMI like the idea - a LOT - of having "under god" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. The whole thing is a complete crock of poo, but that phrase and the "justice for all" portion of the program are the two reasons I wouldn't stand for it in school...which really, really bothered some teachers. And rednecks.
Does anyone know who actually penned the Pledge?
I found it here. Frankly, I don't give a shit about either issue. As far as the recall thing goes, the idea of having it in its current form is kind of ridiculous anyway. And if it means we can get the voting machines up to date and never have to hear another joke about "hanging chads", then go nuts.
Posted by: Pat at September 16, 2003 04:26 PMI support removing "under God" from the pledge as well, mostly because a) it's endorsement of religion by the state, and b) it wasn't part of the pledge anyway. "Under God" was added in 1954 at the height of McCarthyism -- everyone was scared of American children becoming atheist communists. The phrase ends up showing how insecure Americans are.
Posted by: Rick at September 16, 2003 04:49 PM3 posts in one hour, all intelligent. How about that? Chris posted at 4:20. Good times.
The whole seperation of church and state thing is a sham, and it shouldn't be. How could the 10 commandments end up in a courthouse in the first place? The money says 'In God We Trust.' No seperation of God and State I suppose. I blame Roy.
Posted by: john at September 16, 2003 06:21 PMhey, the computer remembered my name and email! it's the little things in life. so rick, you criticize this court as being the one that ruled "under God" should be out and then say that you think it should be out?
i think it should be out, and i didn't recite it with the rest of the class in high school. no one got on my case as there were bigger crimes to prosecute. i also think "in god we trust" should be removed from dollar bills.
Posted by: Roy at September 16, 2003 06:25 PMWell, thanks to Pat not being so all-enveloping lazy he couldn't do a Google, like me, I found the problem with the pledge. Says Yahoo: "The Baptist Minister Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892." BAPTIST MINISTER. Damn. Those are the worst. Excepting, of course, someone thrusting Muslim lit into my chest in front of Stamp when all I want is a freaking Tuna Fish croissant with carrots and spinach.
Foooooooooour Twenty.
Posted by: Chris at September 16, 2003 06:56 PMI was just mentioning the "under God" ruling because it exemplified how the court's rulings are often misrepresentative of most American's views, that's all (we all seem to be in the minority). I didn't mean to sound critical of their "under God" ruling, which I agreed with. Plus, I probably mentioned it because I was proud that I was able to remember facts from a story from last year :)
Posted by: Rick at September 16, 2003 11:51 PM