Say Uncle brings to my attention this newspaper story on a former UT student who is suing the university for arresting him after he painted “No War” on university buildings.
From what I gather, the gist of the ex-student’s complaint is that he was he was singled out for punishment not for his conduct (painting the building) but for his anti-war message. Apparently, there’s no explicit rule against painting campus buildings.
Thus the complainant argues that but for the university’s content-based restriction, it would have been okay for him to spray paint the buildings.
I don’t know this student’s “speech” got cleaned up faster than other graffiti, but clearly the university cannot give students free reign to paint buildings.
When I was over on The Hill, most of the daily graffiti I saw (outside of the bathrooms) was written in chalk, not paint. I think most sober students understand this distinction. By pressing the issue in a far-fetched claims such as this, the litigants are alienating public opinion and only making it more difficult for protesters to bring legitimate First Amendment claims in the future.
The real shame of this all is that if there currently isn’t a rule against graffiti, there may be one now–even for those using temporary chalk. So, as is often the case, someone who goes too far may end up ruining a practice for everyone.
Washington’s Slaves
Yesterday as part of C-SPAN’s President’s Day festivities, they had a segment with Henry Wiencek discussing his book, An Imperfect God, which examines George Washington’s moral struggle with the slavery issue.
It’s fairly-widely known that the Washington’s owned slaves and did not free them until they died. Apparently George was much more troubled by the situation than his wife Martha. According to Wiencek, one of the slaves was Martha’s half-sister. [I guess her dad was involved in the same kind of hanky panky that Thomas Jefferson was.] Despite their relationship, Martha kept her half-sister as a slave.
It says something about how strongly the slavery culture was ingrained at the time that someone could hold their own blood relative as property.
Presidential Pets
Did you know George Washington had 36 hounds?
To commemorate President’s Day, some presidential trivia: “All The Presidents’ Pets.”
Denials
Both Senator Kerry and Alexandra Polier have now come out and denied rumors of their alleged affair.
Of course Matt Drudge never claimed they had an affair. He merely said that people were talking about an affair.
Whatever.
“Stronger Legs”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gets it:
For Democrats, then, the challenge is to nominate the man who can take his party’s common vision for the nation and convince voters that it offers the right course for America. That man, in our judgment, is Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. We urge Democrats to vote for him in Tuesday’s primary.
. . .
The two Americas message – and job loss, acute in Wisconsin, is a part of it – resonates with audiences partly because Edwards peppers it with statistical support, partly because the messenger delivers the message so skillfully. That talent is part of his compelling personal story. Edwards was born in a South Carolina mill town to poor parents who worked their way into the middle class. After college and law school in North Carolina, he became an enormously successful trial lawyer winning suits especially on behalf of injured children. That experience before juries helps to explain his extraordinary political skills.
Edwards is smart, engaging and upbeat, comfortable before any audience and often inspiring. Perhaps most intriguing of all, his optimistic campaign, free of attacks on his Democratic rivals, suggests something important about his character: Here is someone who seems to believe that the power of persuasion doesn’t have to include excoriation and the politics of personal destruction.
. . .
If Democrats are serious about winning in November, they have two choices at this point. John Kerry would make a strong run at President Bush and might defeat him. But we think John Edwards, with his combination of message and method, may have the stronger legs in this long distance race.
Well said.
Tipping the Scales
If the prospect of running against a non-telegenic, patrician “Massachusetts liberal” wasn’t propping up Bush’s re-election chances enough, now comes this:
Former Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is poised to declare that he will seek the presidency again this year, this time as an independent and despite a vigorous effort by the left to dissuade him, according to friends and associates.
“I think there’s very little doubt,” said Micah Sifry, author of a book on third-party politics and a longtime Nader watcher. “I think he’s going to run.”
Nader, blamed for tilting the 2000 election to President Bush by siphoning off votes from Al Gore, twice has delayed saying whether he would be a candidate, but insiders expect the declaration next week.
Needless to say, if Nader enables Bush to win re-election, everything the independent is supposedly running for goes out the window.