7th circuit: "If the [Supreme Court] Justices are just pulling our leg, let them say so."

SWHC



<Leth> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020626/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance_3
<Leth> interesting
<zompist> the right wing will have a lot of fun with that.
<mdxi> so do we get the original back now?
<zompist> technically the decision should only affect that court's jurisdiction
<Leth> hehehe, msnbc is having a call-in show and some woman's on there saying there's going to be more school shootings and general teen problems because of this
<Leth> zomp: it's a federal court
<zompist> a circuit court... so it can't speak for the whole country
<CrazyClimber> w00t, maybe money is next
<CrazyClimber> i want our currency declared unconstitutional
<Leth> yeah
<Leth> I'm interested to see what this does to a court's swearing-in process
<Leth> or Presidential Inaugurations for that matter
<CrazyClimber> oh, cecil covered that long enough ago that it was in his first book
<CrazyClimber> the swearing-in
<Leth> oh, I know, but that doesn't mean someone won't bring the case up, cc
<CrazyClimber> well, yeah
<raven> how long until someone starts ranting about how you can't say the pledge now, when it really just says that it's being reverted back to the original?
<zompist> you saw leth's comment... they're already ranting.
<zompist> they're going to be savoring this. evil government rips god out of the pledge of allegiance
<CrazyClimber> and the liberal media report on it
<CrazyClimber> and actually, this story doesn't focus on going back to the original; after the lead, everything is "can't be said in school anymore"
<raven> exactly.
<raven> I hate that.
<zompist> curious that it doesn't bug these people that the evil government wants to exempt the dept of homeland security from the freedom of information act
<Leth> zomp: that whole thing is one of the scariest things I have ever seen/read in our history
<Leth> even scarier than Lots threads on usenet
<ristoril> i must have missed that story about the US SS getting immunity from FOIA
<CrazyClimber> the trib has a yes/no poll attached to the story that simply asks, "should the pledge be recited in schools?"
<ristoril> not the SS... what's it called... Homeland Security
<mdxi> they would be the GeStaPo, not the SS
<mdxi> ss was an elite military unit
<ristoril> oh, right, the Freedom Corps is our SS
<Leth> the only real equivalent we'd have to the SS is if the FBI and CIA combined with the Green Berets
<zompist> risto: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-congress-homeland.html
<ristoril> wow, all i have to do to show a 'willingness' to cooperate with someone is state that i'm willing to cooperate without actually cooperating
<ristoril> that's awesom
<ristoril> "there has been concerns"
<Leth> heheheheh... the news story was posted on fark 10 minutes ago. There are already 150 comments
<Leth> hm, if this happened before 9/11, would there have been the huge popularity surge for "God Bless America"?
<CrazyClimber> no way, no
<CrazyClimber> and you can tell those farkers that i said that
<CrazyClimber> one of whom must be lots by now
<CrazyClimber> cnn's story is much better than ap's, but it still sounds like the entire pledge has been struck down, not the act that revised it
<CrazyClimber> http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html
<me_tew> What was ruled unconstitutional, the recitation or the inclusion of the phrase?
* zompist snarkily points out to bob that that *is* the ap story
<ristoril> nope
<ristoril> it had added content
<ristoril> like who brought the suit and why it went to appeals court
<ristoril> unless the ap story got revised
<CrazyClimber> well, with a lot more content
<CrazyClimber> or, as we used to say, information
<ristoril> that is *so* 1998
<me_tew> Text of decision, so you can read it for yourself: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
* CrazyClimber loads page, sees that this is all bill clinton's fault
<CrazyClimber> there's a lot of cool stuff in the footnotes
<me_tew> Including the "In God We Trust" on coinage
<CrazyClimber> heh, they're really dissing newdow
<me_tew> He tried to sue the President.
<me_tew> You don't _do_ that.
<CrazyClimber> yeah, there's a lot of tacit criticism of his lawyer too
<ristoril> 'SCUSD'?
<CrazyClimber> it's how you hook hard drives up to a mac
<me_tew> SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;
<zompist> man, those guys love footnotes
<me_tew> oh yeah...
<me_tew> I've seen several fed cases where the decision is about a page with twenty pages of footnotes
<zompist> but the bottom line is section [10] on page 24... it's definitely the words "under god" that they object to, not "the pledge" in total.
<CrazyClimber> heh, "Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal."
<CrazyClimber> there's his hook for an appeal over the inscription on currency.
*** spinn has joined #spinnwebe
<CrazyClimber> this dissenting judgeis really foaming on page 27
<CrazyClimber> the paragraph that begins "some, who rather choke"
<me_tew> heh. Yeah, he's fun.
<CrazyClimber> man, that was before i read his footnote about "the long path to kulturkampf"
<me_tew> Wait until you get to the songs, CC
<spinn> oh, what's the court case here?
<me_tew> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
<me_tew> http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html
<me_tew> for the quick version, spinn
<CrazyClimber> yeah, but the pdf of the court case is much better
<CrazyClimber> "And currency beware!"
<me_tew> heh
<spinn> wowww
<spinn> neat
<zompist> the dissenting guy has "reagan/bush appointee" written all over him
<CrazyClimber> "That will cool the febrile nerves of a few at the cost of removing the healthy glow conferred upon many citizens when the forbidden verses, or phrases, are uttered, read, or seen."
<ristoril> i wonder
<CrazyClimber> sorry, i gotta
<CrazyClimber> x loop kr "That will cool the febrile nerves of a few at the cost of removing the healthy glow conferred upon many citizens when the forbidden verses, or phrases, are uttered, read, or seen."
<jeeb> CrazyClimber: " The glow which is healthy presented in the many citizen the verse which is forbidden, or almost eps the phrase will cool the febrile nerve, when the foot en becoming, read in expense of removal, or step. "
<ristoril> the very first court cases, when they were writing their decisions, were they really really short?
<ristoril> because today's seem to be basically an amalgam of copy/paste from previous decisions
<mdxi> it's called "precedent"
<zompist> i think law has always been that way
<ristoril> oh, that' can't be, there had to be first court cases
<zompist> at least, whenever there were actual lawyers, rather than just kings deciding
<ristoril> "We findum Running Elk violated Honking Bear with tree branch."
<spinn> "see people v. rivers run swiftly."
<me_tew> "Honking Bear"?
<mdxi> you can go back a long, long way wiht written law and using what has come before as legal precedent. the anglo-saxon common law, rome and greece, Hammurabic code
<mdxi> not "court cases" as such, but the same concept
<zompist> any institution is going to be run chiefly by the principle of cya
<zompist> and the easiest way to do so is to point to a previous decision.
<ristoril> so law has existed since time immemoriam?
* ristoril slaughters a phrase
<mdxi> time in memoriam?
<me_tew> What mdxi said. The first TN court cases, though, seem rather short compared to the ones today
<spinn> rist, people always look to precedent
<spinn> "that's how we've always done it" sort of thing
<mdxi> actually, it HAS. the English court system defined "time immemorial" several centuries ago as "before the memory of any living man"
<spinn> no reason why legal matters should be any different
<mdxi> so, by legal definition, there has been law since time immemorial
<mdxi> QED
<mdxi> next case
<zompist> when kings decided things, they could be arbitrary... but even then i bet they were often glad to say "sorry, i have to rule against you, it's the law"
<me_tew> There's also the de minimis of lower courts looking to superior courts for findings; i.e., a lower court cannot overturn a higher court
<spinn> so, I'm sorry that I missed the discussion of this, then...what was the general opinion of the pledge of allegiance ruling?
<me_tew> Not everybody at once, now...
<spinn> or you could just
<spinn> sigh
<me_tew> I'll go first; I agree with the dissenting opinion; the inclusion of the phrase "under God" does not dictate the establishment of religion, and is therefore constitutional.
<spinn> really
<me_tew> Really.
<spinn> even though eisenhower made his intention to do so pretty explicit?
<CrazyClimber> well, my boss' boss (a very conservative republican) sure ducked out of the conversation here fast when i mentioned that i'm an atheist
<CrazyClimber> think i'm down into the negative millions of brownie points now
<CrazyClimber> and yeah, spinn, i agree
<mdxi> being a godless heathen who believes (in general) in the rule of law and in the basic correctness of the Constitution, i side with the court
<zompist> i agree with both sides... i think it's a religious intrusion, but doesn't actually do harm... i think the case was a waste of everyone's time.
<mdxi> there's that too. choosing your battles is important.
<spinn> mmmm. I'm with the justice that said it was equivalent to putting in "under Zeus"
<mdxi> no one even knows the freakin' pledge any more
<CrazyClimber> said boss' boss made the cogent point that this is going to be the best conservative fundraiser in years, perhaps even moreso than 9/11
<me_tew> What Eisenhower intended is beside the point. A law was passed that's been constitutional for 50 years; what's changed?
<spinn> oh there's hardly anything constant about the constitution
<mdxi> laws are not constitutional or not based on time on the books
<CrazyClimber> making them colored folk sit on the back of the bus was constitutional for longer than that
<mdxi> any law may be passed; it is up to the judicial branch to determine constitutionality and the people to start the process
<spinn> and I don't see how what eisenhower intended was beside the point. courts frequently refer to "what the framers of the constitution intended"
<spinn> and "framers" is wrong there, isn't it
<mdxi> no
<spinn> can't recall the correct word
<spinn> no? oh
<spinn> well yay me then
<ristoril> I agree with the court's decision
<ristoril> in spite of the fact that i'm a backwards hillbilly
<spinn> actually I would not be surprised if this was influenced some small way by the trouble the church is having now
<me_tew> It shall be interesting to see if the High Court takes this one on appeal.
<spinn> I'm curious to see what the state of christianity will be in this country in 20 years
<zompist> sometimes i wonder if the militant atheists aren't in the pay of the fundies... like bob's grandboss said, this is going to keep the fundies riled up for years
<zompist> greg, i'll bet you that i'll be just a little weaker than today... and that, only 'cos religious revivals go in cycles and we're due for a dip.
<spinn> mmmm, true...this is a pretty serious scandal though
<zompist> it doesn't affect the fundies, tho'.
<spinn> oh, true
<spinn> well, roman catholic church, then
<zompist> they'll just point out that they said all along the catholics were going to hell.
<spinn> though it's also a mindshare thing. this is spreading out mistrust in established religion
<me_tew> spinn: Eisenhower's comments are 'behind the law'. They're not a part of the legislative intent of the law. Yes, the court can look behind the law, but that's not a _part of_ the law. The intent can be unconstitutional, but the law can still be constitutional.
<spinn> in some way. I just wonder what.
<spinn> so you don't think it's equivalent to "under Zeus"
<me_tew> No, because it doesn't say "the God of Abraham, son of Issac..." It leaves "God" to be your own perception or personification of a Creator.
<spinn> assuming you have one
<CrazyClimber> right.
<spinn> dunno, I think that, if it seems like it's a waste of time, it's because you assume there's a single god and don't see what the big deal is with arguing about it
<spinn> and you'd be comfortable with telling your kids "look, I know we don't believe in a god, but just pretend you do and say the damn thing and keep quiet about it"
<CrazyClimber> and besides, "your own perception or personification of a Creator" would require a lowercase "god." uppercase is a proper name.
<spinn> and I have no doubt the God of Christianity was the intention. if God had a name other than God, that would've been there, I have no doubt.
<spinn> dang. lot of non-doubting there
<zompist> if you have a non-majority religious view, then hearing other people say "under god" in the pledge is going to be the least of your problems.
<zompist> i just don't believe that reciting the pledge imparts any value or beliefs at all, good or bad.
<CrazyClimber> i have no objection to other people saying anything. i object to the assumption, and law, that it must be said.
<zompist> but that's not the issue here
<me_tew> Yeah, that surprised me, CC. I didn't think they could do a forced recitation.
<CrazyClimber> one friend here is going to ask her gay atheist friends about which aspect of their personality they're more comfortable revealing.
<zompist> that pdf refers to previous decisions that you can't force kids to recite the pledge.
<CrazyClimber> sure it's the issue, zomp, that's the law that was struck down
<me_tew> Yes, it is, Zomp: and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.
<CrazyClimber> the very act of putting those words into the pledge was a violation.
<CrazyClimber> the consensus here seems to be that the pledge will be rewritten to "one nation [mumble something here] with..."
<CrazyClimber> not legally, just in practice.
<zompist> look for the ref to "jehovah's witnesses" on p. 28
<CrazyClimber> yeah i know, i know, no student can be forced to recite it. and don't forget, kids, respect their views if they won't recite it. don't taunt them or mock them or anything.
<CrazyClimber> every step fundies take to establishing links between patriotism and christianity needs to be stopped. this may be 50 years overdue, but it needs to be done.
<zompist> what does that have to do with what the law or the decision is?
<ristoril> the decision is pretty solid about there being a coercive nature to having children recite it
<zompist> also see page 16: it was established long ago that students can't be forced to recite the pledge.
<ristoril> basically, the court is saying that children are being put in the position of conforming and saying "one nation under God" or protesting
<ristoril> and that that's an untenable position to force children into
<zompist> the issue is whether requiring teachers to recite it, or students to listen to others reciting it, is unconstitutional.
<ristoril> you musta skipped to the end of the decision, zomp
<ristoril> it clearly states that requiring teachers to recite it and requiring students to listen to others recite it is unconstitutional
<zompist> look at the cites i provided, rist.
<ristoril> and that courts have held that, including the USSC, for a long time
<ristoril> i'm reading it front to back i'll get there
<zompist> well, find a single place where it says that students are required to say the pledge.
<ristoril> it doesn't matter if they're required to say it
<ristoril> they're required to either conform and say it or not say it and effectively protest
<ristoril> those are their onnly two choices aside from not attending school
<ristoril> and that's illegal up until they're 18
<CrazyClimber> i don't think it does, zomp, and i've kinda lost track of why you're focused on that'
<zompist> because of this, bob:
<zompist> <CrazyClimber> i have no objection to other people saying anything. i object to the assumption, and law, that it must be said.
<ristoril> bob is an adult
<CrazyClimber> i didn't say students
<zompist> <me_tew> Yeah, that surprised me, CC. I didn't think they could do a forced recitation.
<CrazyClimber> and i separated out assumption and law
<ristoril> if you start on page 10 zomp and read the info about the 3 tests commonly used to determine whether something violates the Establishment clause, I think you'll see where I'm getting my stance
<CrazyClimber> i thought i did a pretty good job on that one.
<ristoril> page 10 of the pdf i dunno what page it is in the decision
<CrazyClimber> the pdf is the decision.
<zompist> well, what do you think we're disagreeing on?
<CrazyClimber> i dunno. i stopped thinking that a while back.
<CrazyClimber> that's why i asked.
<ristoril> i can't find in scrollback if anyone brought up that footnote 10 on page 19 distinguishes this from the "In God We Trust" thing on money... but it's there
<zompist> well, from your and tew's comments sounded like the issue was whether children could be forced to recite the pledge.
<CrazyClimber> they can't be legally forced. they can be socially forced.
<CrazyClimber> i think that's what rist and i have been commenting on.
<CrazyClimber> but that isn't the heart of the decision, and i know that (and tried to ensure that my comments showed that).
<ristoril> insofar as i was pointing out that that's one of the bases upon which this decision was fonuded, yeah
<ristoril> although i'm up to base 8 so far
<me_tew> The decision has two hearts: 1) "Under God" and 2) forced recitation. In accordance with state law and a school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Alle-giance ("the Pledge").
<me_tew> The decision states that the school district (and state law) can't require that because of the "under God" part.
<zompist> well, for that, newdow doesn't complain that his daughter was forced to recite it
<zompist> the only one who could talk about "forced recitation" is the teacher, but the ruling doesn't address that, 'cos the plaintiff wasn't a teacher.
<ristoril> heh, celebrity death match: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vs 7th Circuit Court of Appeals!
<me_tew> 7th would take them easily.
<ristoril> heh, they can use their confusing logic on the 9th to daze them, then hit it with a chair
<ristoril> heh, 9th speaking of 7th, "Circuit courts are not free to ignore Supreme Court precedent in this manner."
<CrazyClimber> hey tew, does the top of page 2 mean that newdow was his own lawyer?
<ristoril> boo-ya!
<Samwise> The only thing I don't like about the pledge is making kids say it without even trying to tell them what it means.
<CrazyClimber> or own attorney, i guess?
<me_tew> Yep: Pro se: for one's self
<CrazyClimber> that explains why the first few pages are basically the judges laughing at him, then
<zompist> sam: you want to encourage kids to be askin' questions or somethin'?
<zompist> commie
<me_tew> Appearing for one's self in an action or criminal prosecution (Ballentine's Law Dictionary)
<zompist> they make beer too, don't they?
<CrazyClimber> commies?
<ristoril> i thought ballentine's was the guy that led the snakes across the himalayas to invade russia
<me_tew> Thus endeth the serious discussion.
<zompist> i'd be happy to argue some more about social forcing, but we can go back to boobs if you all want
<CrazyClimber> can we go back to boobs if we never really left boobs?
<mdxi> "boobs" is the polar opposite of "home", because you can always go back again
<me_tew> left boobs?
<CrazyClimber> i mean, some of those teachers probably had boobs
<CrazyClimber> a subset of those boobs were probably nice boobs
<ristoril> bwahah, 7th circuit, "If the [Supreme Court] Justices are just pulling our leg, let them say so."
<spinn> oh, I just went for some food, and I ahd a thought while walking
<spinn> what if it'd been "one nation, for Whites"?
<spinn> would that have not promoted racial superiority in any significant way?
<zompist> no, but it would've been more honest
<CrazyClimber> i was kind of disappointed that no one replied to my point about the jim crow laws standing for a much longer time, but i'm over it, and we're talking boobies now
<zompist> that was in response to mdxi, wasn't it? well, he was wrong.
<spinn> oh, I just figured that was in rebuttal to me_tew's odd "so what's changed" comment
<spinn> figured lack of comment was his being cowed into submission
<CrazyClimber> smaller boobies are nice
<spinn> mark: but if that had been there, I doubt you would've considered it a waste of time to remove it
<ristoril> the end of the dissent is funny
<ristoril> "respectfully"
<ristoril> "you stupid whining toadies"
<zompist> hmm. good point, greg. tho' i think
<zompist> racism is a deeper problem than anti-monotheist bigotry.
<CrazyClimber> constitutionality is more a yes/no than a sliding scale.
<CrazyClimber> also, boobies.
<spinn> I think we understand that racism is a deep problem now, finally, after many years of change and difficulty
<ristoril> What if we replace "under God" with "God bless boobies"?
<zompist> well, adding god to the pledge and the money was a bad idea, and they should change 'em back.
<spinn> but the country generally just assumes there's one god and that's it. it's not even enough in the popular mentality to see how that could be an issue
<Drusilla> really.
<Drusilla> Christmas is a national holiday. Easter too.
<CrazyClimber> and this is a first step, zomp.
<spinn> okay, I cede to boobies
<me_tew> Sorry, spinn, but I was away again. To answer your question, the Constitution still has the phrase "by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons" in it, yet we don't count blacks as three fifths of whites now. But the language stays as a part of a historical document.
<CrazyClimber> aw, just when i was getting back into it
<spinn> I'll go eat my lunch
<spinn> someone send me a message when I could possibly care about the channel again
<zompist> i don't think it's worth much time and won't do anything to bring about a beautiful god-free future.
<ristoril> the constitution never said anything about blacks and whites, just free people and indians
<CrazyClimber> well, you're making that decision for the people to whom it does matter.
* me_tew plays "Imagine" by Lennon for rist.
<mdxi> there's a BASF/3M joke in that sentence, struggling to get out
<me_tew> "all other persons", rist.
<ristoril> o/` imagine all the boobies... o/`
<zompist> i am? i determine how they spend their time and money?
<zompist> i've sure been wasting that superpower
<CrazyClimber> there's no need to take me that literally or be that bitter.
* CrazyClimber goes back to boobies too
<ristoril> when you're as old as zomp, bitterness isn't a choice, it's a way of life
<Drusilla> I think zomp's right
<zompist> well, try to rephrase your comment in a way that doesn't seem silly.
<Drusilla> persecuting the poor Christians, or giving certain groups of them an opportunity to think that, won't help
* CrazyClimber returns to thinking about female breats as well
<zompist> i've expressed an opinion that mr. newdow will never ever see or ever care about. why does that bother you?
<ristoril> BASF: we don't make the boobies; we make them firmer
<mdxi> some might say that seeing enforcement of separation of church and state as "persecution" is symptomatic of the problem itself
<mdxi> knockers
<Drusilla> I would say that.
<Drusilla> which is why i never get invited back to youth group meetings
<zompist> and others, such as me, would say that choosing your battles is the first step to not losing them
<ristoril> this guy didn't lose though :)
<ristoril> ...yet
<CrazyClimber> doesn't look like he lost.
<ristoril> he gets to have a trial now
<zompist> well, good for him. and what will he accomplish?
<CrazyClimber> i bet he'll accomplish more, better, faster if he gets a real lawyer.
<raven> The fact that it has to be a "battle" bugs me.
<me_tew> What do you mean, raven?
<zompist> i wonder if japhod is addressing the issue yet
<raven> I mean that it pisses me off that it's *assumed* that cramming a little god in places where it's not relevant is fine and dandy.
<raven> "It's not hurting anything!"
<Drusilla> pisses me off too.
<me_tew> Ah.
<raven> And so something as simple as this has to become a giant battle, rather than a "Hmmmm, you're right, a belief in god is irrelevant to one's patriotism."
<Drusilla> It sucks. but, sadly, it's the way we've got the system set up.
<raven> no, it's the way we let the system get.
<raven> And maybe he considers it important to keep it from getting worse.
<raven> There are worse ways to spend one's time.
<Drusilla> this country was established with Manifest Destiny.
<Drusilla> God told the nice white boys to kill people and take the land.
<zompist> i agree he could be doing worse things. but i think he could be doing better things, too.
<raven> well, we *all* could be doing better things.
<CrazyClimber> but this goes back to my point, zomp. that's your value judgment, and it seems not to correspond to his.
<ristoril> it's an absolute truth
<zompist> that's a point?
<CrazyClimber> i mean, i'm not telling you that you have to feel otherwise.
<zompist> if it makes you feel better, bob, you're completely right. it's my value judgment, and it seems not to correspond to his.
<CrazyClimber> but i don't understand the viewpoint that he shouldn't have done this.
<Drusilla> it won't change anything.
<Drusilla> he wins, kids will call other kids atheists and kick their ass at recess.
<raven> eh, kids won't even notice in another year or two.
<raven> "The pledge of whuh?"
<zompist> i don't know what's unclear, bob. i think it won't bring about the glorious god-free future and may actually be counter-productive. i'll gladly e-mail you a list of 100 better things someone could do with their time.
<keith> the wording they use is rather strange
<keith> "If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press"
<keith> That's not what it means. It means that it won't be forced upon the children by the teachers.
<keith> It's not like most kids are like "I think I'll say the Pledge of Allegiance during lunch today"
<keith> And if they did, they'd still be able to do it.
<zompist> keith, see the actual court decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
<Drusilla> it's "The teacher won't pull out that quiet kid and make them lead the class in a recitation."
<Mikki> um, ya know people have allways been able to sit out the pledge.
<zompist> if i'm reading the decision properly, the court says that adding 'under god' to the pledge was unconstitutional, and it doesn't work to just say the kid doesn't have to recite.
<Drusilla> Not in all states.
<keith> Well, I'm glad to see that Mikki didn't even do the first set of reading
<raven> zomp : yeah, that's my understanding
<keith> 'The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.'
<CrazyClimber> mine as well.
<zompist> and tew can help with the legalese, but i think the next step is that the lower court now has to hear the case again
<CrazyClimber> i just wanted us all to agree for one brief glorious moment.
<keith> From what I understand, the Virgin Mary was also "under God", and there was very little "religious content" going on there.
<raven> And the AP is already stirring the shit... "Now kids can't say the pledge!!" Dur, yes, they can, they may just be required to use the more original phrasing. christ on pony, you media morons.
*** wabewalkr has joined #spinnwebe
<zompist> if it was up to me, every child in california should be required to take the bear test
<wabewalkr> Damn you and the horse you rode in on.
<Drusilla> "one nation, indivisible."
<Drusilla> not so fucking hard
<zompist> one naked individual
<me_tew> Just one?
<wabewalkr> Remember... today's pledge-reciters are tomorrow's jingoistic terrorists.
<Drusilla> they're assuming kids even say the pledge correctly
<wabewalkr> I called it "last-minute-homework-time."
<Drusilla> "I pledge allegiance... hey, finish my homework for me...."
<zompist> i hope we at least get a good japhod diatribe over this
<Drusilla> he's on that town banning satan thing.
<CrazyClimber> and for those who complain about the liberal media, cnn's new story currently ends with "The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country. "
<mdxi> for those who complain about liberal media, there's Fox "News"
<zompist> "first impact of the rule of the satanic world criminal court: pledge banned in america!"
<Drusilla> the liberal media is very sneaky, and pretends to be conservative very effectively.
<mdxi> says the x-files fanficcer
<Drusilla> yeah, I have like no credibility.
<Drusilla> fortunately, no one listens to me.
*** Lore has joined #spinnwebe
<Lore> Prepare yourselves for a firestorm, fellow Americans.
<Lore> Are we already aware in here that the Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional, for certain values of "unconstitutional"?
<Drusilla> behehehehehe
<keith> Yeah, we were just talking about that
<Drusilla> Yes, Lore
<Lore> Aw, and I missed it.
<Drusilla> we just finished.
<raven> yup
<Lore> I jumped on just to hear your trenchant observations.
* Lore goes to look up "trenchant" to make sure he's using it right.
<keith> The liberal appeals court has also decided that kids who say "pledge alleginace to the fag" will be suspended.
<Lore> Yup, "of or belonging to someone inclined to wear trenchcoats."
<keith> I believe "trenchant" has been outlawed out of respect for the victims of the "Trenchcoat Mafia", which has also been banned in favor of "Those Killer Guys"
<spinn> hm, that whole conversation would be good for a philosophy log, if we'd ever had one
<zompist> for a small fee, someone can send you a log
<spinn> also might help me locate the part where zomp was insulted
<Drusilla> when i agreed with him
<Lore> Zomp was insulted? In the transitive or intransitive sense?
<zompist> i don't recall that
<Drusilla> oh. hm.


Heather Garvey / Raven / raven@xnet.com
I want to submit a log!