Dancing Prohibited In the Land of the Free
Sometimes you have to wonder what this world is coming to...
Here's the brief story from Fox News:
A couple of weeks ago the DC courts ruled that people are not allowed to dance at the national monuments. As this NBC article says, the DC Court of Appeals said “expressive dancing falls within the spectrum of prohibited activities” and that “the Park Service has a substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our national memorials.”
Can you believe that?
I wonder exactly what movement of what body part meets the criterion for dancing. What if you're just walking funny? Is skipping all right? Maybe skipping is okay unless you're listening to music while you do it.
This week a group of people went to the Jefferson Memorial to dance again. Luckily the criminals were caught on video, being choked and subdued by the courageous policemen who are protecting our rights as Americans.
And while you're enjoying the taste of freedom, here's Bryan Fisher, Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, explaining why profanity and blasphemy should be illegal. His reasoning is classic: people (Kobe Bryant, Ed Schultz) get punished for using bad language at work, thus people should be punished for using bad language in their private lives, for instance for taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see any problem with that logic, do you?
Here's the brief story from Fox News:
Washington, DC - A dance-in at the Jefferson Memorial led to five arrests and a violent clash with U.S. Park Police.
A group was protesting a recent court decision that said expressive dancing is the same as picketing and marching...banned in certain areas of national monuments.
A video the protestors posted on YouTube appears to show officers slamming arrestees to the pavement...using choke holds...punching.
A spokesman for Park Police says the agency is investigating complaints officers overreacted.
Meanwhile the protestors say they plan to be back next Saturday at noon.
Five People Arrested for Dancing
A couple of weeks ago the DC courts ruled that people are not allowed to dance at the national monuments. As this NBC article says, the DC Court of Appeals said “expressive dancing falls within the spectrum of prohibited activities” and that “the Park Service has a substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our national memorials.”
Can you believe that?
I wonder exactly what movement of what body part meets the criterion for dancing. What if you're just walking funny? Is skipping all right? Maybe skipping is okay unless you're listening to music while you do it.
This week a group of people went to the Jefferson Memorial to dance again. Luckily the criminals were caught on video, being choked and subdued by the courageous policemen who are protecting our rights as Americans.
And while you're enjoying the taste of freedom, here's Bryan Fisher, Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, explaining why profanity and blasphemy should be illegal. His reasoning is classic: people (Kobe Bryant, Ed Schultz) get punished for using bad language at work, thus people should be punished for using bad language in their private lives, for instance for taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see any problem with that logic, do you?
posted by JimK at 10:44 AM
5 Comments:
I wouldn't say it should be unconstitutional to ban dancing at memorials but, considering everything else that goes on there, from frisbees flying to ice cream trucks jingling and carousels spinning, it's really stupid, and, in our democratic nation, doubtless not the will of the people
as for the other matter, I always am offended by these sports owners that fine players for self-expression
the players should start their own league and cut these no-talents out of their unearned share of the profits
btw, on the hipster front, I was reading Keith Richards' autobiography poolside this afternoon and was amused to learn that Keith Richards was taught certain guitar-playing techniques by Bobby Goldsboro
almost as funny as when I learned from Glen Campbell's autobiography that he and Leon Russell used to work to together writing jingles for commercials
oh, the hipsters must be horrified
Check out the hippest thing you'll see all day, Anon; HERE. Tell, me, is Leon Russell hip or what? And also, isn't that Glen Campbell on the banjo? Man, there is nothing hipper than doing a song by Ol' Hank.
JimK
"Man, there is nothing hipper than doing a song by Ol' Hank."
well, there is always Dion
LOL
seriously, that's was pretty cool
thanks for posting it, Jim
Go read the Feb. 17, 2011 Rolling Stone interview of Elton John. In 2008, Leon Russell was "was touring just to put bread on the table, playing small places and losing his selfl-respect. It was awful, like 'Crazy Horse' without the drugs or booze." So Elton asked Leon to record a new album with him. Then "Russell thanked Elton for reviving his career, singing, 'When you're in the hand of angels/Life is oh so sweet/And you feel the love, deep down inside.'"
"I thought, 'What do you give a guy who's got six houses and 10 of everything?" says Russell. "The only thing I could give him would be a song."
Then be sure to pay retail for the album Elton and Leon recorded together, The Union, and hear that song Leon wrote for Elton. You'll be glad you did.
DC law can define dancing but the FBI can't define rape any better than it did 80 years ago? WTF?
"Last week, the FBI released the preliminary findings of its Uniform Crime Report (UCR). According to the new data, crime, including "forcible" rape, is down. That might sound like great news, but the UCR isn't telling us the whole story.
For the UCR—the go-to national record on violent crimes—uses a narrow definition of "forcible rape" written more than 80 years ago. To the UCR, a rape only counts if a woman's vagina is penetrated by a penis by force and against her will. So how do we know if rape is really on the decline when the UCR only counts a fraction of the cases?
That's one reason why the definition needs to change. Another major reason is that the UCR numbers are often used to allocate resources.
Unbelievably, the outdated UCR definition of "forcible rape" excludes:
• excludes those raped with an object, finger or fist;
• excludes those raped anally or orally; and
• excludes all men who are raped.
And many police forces leave out drug- and alcohol-facilitated rape, rape of incapacitated or unconscious women and rape of those with physical or mental disabilities who cannot forcefully resist. That means a huge number of rapes "don't count."
Without accurate reports, we cannot know the magnitude of the problem. Without correct statistics, we will never have adequate funding for law enforcement to deal with rape.
Join with the Feminist Majority and sign their letter to the FBI and DOJ to demand an expanded and modernized UCR definition of rape."
Sign the letter here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1400/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6963
Post a Comment
<< Home