I don't know. Why kind of anal prigs get upset that a predominantly Christian nation has a lot of symbols of that Christianity. You all know my religious views but the sham outrage many of my fellow atheists pretend to feel is just as annoying as the reverse.

As with the "under god" controversy with the Pledge of Allegiance I agree that once before a judge the judge really has no leeway to not strike it down. But the people who bring up the issue are just being annoying pricks. Same here.

The war in Iraq has been back-burnered but I think that may be even more damaging. The news shows are still talking about it but by spending less time they are even more focused just on the fatalities. "In other news lots and lots of people were killed in Iraq today." If there wasn't a lot of time spent on positive or neutral developments before there isn't actually any time for them now.

"Deputy Prime Minister in UK calls Bush 'crap'."

Here's the article.

Here's a quote:

Where in that quote does he call Bush crap?

We have a one person recalling what another person said (that the Bush Aministration's work to produce a Middle East road map is crap), which other people present claim to not recall being said, which is then mischaracterized (in every headline I've seen) as calling Bush himself crap.


That's as lame as the contortions to bash Gore in the other thread.

The headline for the story is "Bush is crap, says Prescott".

While I agree that it's contorted - it's interesting to see the piece on the News pages, as opposed to the Op-Ed, where the Gore piece ran.

Putting it on the news pages just makes it lamer. All it is is second hand hearsay gossip.

That's not to say it isn't true but it isn't news either. And the headline writers screw it up further (and not just them, it is being repeated everywhere I saw the story).

You make a good point, Alex. Since this came from a British paper, it seems the story is more of a piece about Prescott, anyway - trying to separate his public image of being close to Blair with the private feelings which are very different. Such a story must be based on hearsay, because if he were to come out and say such things publicly, the story wouldn't exist. Arguably, it would be a better story, though.

Wikipedia has an interesting and thorough timeline of the controversy.

Some interesting points. The law the president signed passed the House 349-74 and the Senate passed it unanimously. So this really can't be laid at the feet of the president or even the Republican Party. Though he certainly endorses it as well.

In 2004 residents of San Diego passed Proposition A by with a 76% yes vote. The text of Proposition A was "Shall the City of San Diego donate to the federal government all of the City's rights, title, and interest in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial property for the federal government's use of the property as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces?"

So this plan fulfills the desire of the people of San Diego. Proposition A was later ruled contrary to the California state constitution. That the city couldn't give the land to the federal government under these conditions.

So they just turned it around and had the government take the land.

And now the process starts all over in federal courts and will probably see the same result. The whole thing is stupid on both sides.

Yep, damn activist judge. I thought this quote from the judge pretty much summed it up.

The Justice Dept is going to appeal the ruling... No surprise.


Mel Gibson sentenced to 3 years probation.