Group: Uncle Milt's needs another chance
Nearly everyone I have heard talk about this bar and the area around the bar agree that has a real problem with crime. Drugs, theft, assault, and even murder go on with no check. The bar has been judged as a magnet or congregation point for these crimes. Now the Avondale Community Council now wants to give the bar another chance. So, this bar has contributed in attracting crime to their neighborhood, yet they want it to reopen under the same owners, who would likely attract the same crowd? Is this a case of the Stockholm Syndrome?
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Local College Students Protest Possible War
They just don't carry any weight when they face no draft. I was in their boat in 1990 and 1991. Back then there was a slightly more realistic concern about creating a draft that would lead to an unknown long-term war. Now there might be a short-term war, lasting months, but there will not be a draft. If we end up needing troops, Bush will make a formal call for more volunteers and would get all needed. UC's News Record's account of the protests. CNN's Take.
They just don't carry any weight when they face no draft. I was in their boat in 1990 and 1991. Back then there was a slightly more realistic concern about creating a draft that would lead to an unknown long-term war. Now there might be a short-term war, lasting months, but there will not be a draft. If we end up needing troops, Bush will make a formal call for more volunteers and would get all needed. UC's News Record's account of the protests. CNN's Take.
WHAT THE HELL is this all about? I have nothing to do with this page or whoever posted a link to my blog.
Local Restauranteur Bans French Products
Ruby is an idiot, and this part of the article proves it:
Ruby is an idiot, and this part of the article proves it:
In the past, Ruby has been critical of the boycott of downtown Cincinnati.It is not an embargo, it is a boycott. If Ruby refused to sell France something, that would be an embargo. The hyper-patriotic fool knows nothing of what the issues are in this situation. He instead hopes he can capitalize on the knee-jerk conservatives happy to conform to the “cause celeb” of the talk radio jet set.
When asked if his efforts against French products are hypocritical, he said, "I don't think so, but I suppose you can stretch anything good into anything bad." He added, "This is not a boycott -- it's an embargo."
Pledge of Allegiance: Under God
Well, it is obvious to me that the editorial staff is monotheists at a minimum, but most likely Christian. This part is their legal basis for believing the 1954 Pledge is constitutional:Today, the words are part of America's colloquial usage, in the same way that "In God We Trust" is included on our currency. So if words are colloquial they lose their original meaning? I guess then the FCC will not fine people for saying "God Fucking Damn It?" If "God Damn It" is not offensive, then why is it beeped on TV so often? Why couldn’t I say that back when I was in school? Why can't a student ask their teacher for a fucking pencil? The word "fucking" is a colloquial term regularly used by a large portion of Americans. What is the problem with the word “fucking?”
There is a problem using the term. The word has a vulgar or obscene meaning to some people. The term "One Nation, Under God" means to me that that our nation is a theocratic state subject to the rule of "God". It also means that the government agreed with this statement in their 1954 law and the crass law passed last year reaffirms the 1954 law. The government or an agent of the government telling me in an official capacity that the country is subject to a “God” is extremely offensive and to me and anyone who does not share that belief.
If the term is meaningless, then why were so many Christians upset at the ruling? Why would they care what version of the Pledge was used? These are basic and honest questions that I cannot believe people would not ask and not understand. The more Christians fight to keep their "God" in the Pledge, the more valid the 9th Circuit Court's ruling becomes.
Well, it is obvious to me that the editorial staff is monotheists at a minimum, but most likely Christian. This part is their legal basis for believing the 1954 Pledge is constitutional:
There is a problem using the term. The word has a vulgar or obscene meaning to some people. The term "One Nation, Under God" means to me that that our nation is a theocratic state subject to the rule of "God". It also means that the government agreed with this statement in their 1954 law and the crass law passed last year reaffirms the 1954 law. The government or an agent of the government telling me in an official capacity that the country is subject to a “God” is extremely offensive and to me and anyone who does not share that belief.
If the term is meaningless, then why were so many Christians upset at the ruling? Why would they care what version of the Pledge was used? These are basic and honest questions that I cannot believe people would not ask and not understand. The more Christians fight to keep their "God" in the Pledge, the more valid the 9th Circuit Court's ruling becomes.
Nate Livingston back in Jail
Nate Livingston, CJC co-chair and local racist, is back in jail serving out the sentence he received as the result of a Fountain Square incident at the opening ceremonies of the year 2000 Oktoberfest. Nate has been fighting his case with multiple appeals, but the Judge in the case ruled against him and Nate was forced back into the lock-up. Nate will fight this more I am sure, but he will most likely not get out before he finishes most of the remaining sentence. Nate deserves his jail sentence, but I am sure it will do nothing but build up his hatred of people that don't look like him and think like him.
I am surprised that since Nate has been the constant media quote machine for the AP that they have not picked up the story. I have not even read it or heard in any local media outlet. The link above is from the CJC's website, where a member posted it wrapped around a huge log of propaganda that is the usual drivel their group puts out. Please take it with a large block of salt.
Nate Livingston, CJC co-chair and local racist, is back in jail serving out the sentence he received as the result of a Fountain Square incident at the opening ceremonies of the year 2000 Oktoberfest. Nate has been fighting his case with multiple appeals, but the Judge in the case ruled against him and Nate was forced back into the lock-up. Nate will fight this more I am sure, but he will most likely not get out before he finishes most of the remaining sentence. Nate deserves his jail sentence, but I am sure it will do nothing but build up his hatred of people that don't look like him and think like him.
I am surprised that since Nate has been the constant media quote machine for the AP that they have not picked up the story. I have not even read it or heard in any local media outlet. The link above is from the CJC's website, where a member posted it wrapped around a huge log of propaganda that is the usual drivel their group puts out. Please take it with a large block of salt.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Enquirer Readers' Views: God should be optional in pledge
Thomas Amann writes in a letter:
No one is telling you Mr. Amann that you can't say the Pledge any way you wish. What the lawsuit says is that 1) the law changing the Pledge in 1954 is unconstitutional, which it clearly is, and 2) that public school teachers/administrators (the State) can't lead children or anyone in this form of the Pledge. The original version is fully legal and actually pretty good.
The Pledge currently is optional. No student has to say it or any part of it. That is not the issue. They issue is that the law changing the pledge was a law that established a religion. That religion does not have to be an organized or an institutionalized religion, but belief in a "god" is by itself a religion. That is what most Christians, and other followers of major monotheistic religions, just don't grasp. I can worship a tree or a mountain. That is protected under the first amendment. If the government says that there is a "God," note the upper case "G" used, that would be a direct contradiction to my tree worshiping religion. I know many Christians like to think that other religions they don't know about are meaningless, but under the law they are no more meaningless than their own religion. That does not even begin to cover those of us, me included, without a religion. I honestly hope that this issue does not create the bigoted and theocratic fervor it did last year. I also hope that when it reaches the Supreme Court, that the Justices don't play politics or rely on their religious beliefs and rule in favor of establishing a state religion. I fear that monotheism will be the adopted de facto.
Thomas Amann writes in a letter:
Seems the easiest and most American way to resolve this issue over the Pledge of Allegiance would be to rule that reciting either way, with or without "under God," is acceptable. If someone doesn't want to say, "under God," that's fine with me. Just don't try to tell me that I can't say it.
Thomas Amann, Mount Washington
No one is telling you Mr. Amann that you can't say the Pledge any way you wish. What the lawsuit says is that 1) the law changing the Pledge in 1954 is unconstitutional, which it clearly is, and 2) that public school teachers/administrators (the State) can't lead children or anyone in this form of the Pledge. The original version is fully legal and actually pretty good.
The Pledge currently is optional. No student has to say it or any part of it. That is not the issue. They issue is that the law changing the pledge was a law that established a religion. That religion does not have to be an organized or an institutionalized religion, but belief in a "god" is by itself a religion. That is what most Christians, and other followers of major monotheistic religions, just don't grasp. I can worship a tree or a mountain. That is protected under the first amendment. If the government says that there is a "God," note the upper case "G" used, that would be a direct contradiction to my tree worshiping religion. I know many Christians like to think that other religions they don't know about are meaningless, but under the law they are no more meaningless than their own religion. That does not even begin to cover those of us, me included, without a religion. I honestly hope that this issue does not create the bigoted and theocratic fervor it did last year. I also hope that when it reaches the Supreme Court, that the Justices don't play politics or rely on their religious beliefs and rule in favor of establishing a state religion. I fear that monotheism will be the adopted de facto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)