Spencer S. Hsu of the Washington Post reports that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs incurred with next weeks inauguration. This not only breaks precedent with former inaugurations, but it forces the city to dip into the $11.9 from homeland security that was awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.
The fact that the grant money is earmarked for other security needs means little, apparently.
Mayor Anthony A. Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But, they say that leaves $11.9 million not covered. Shrugs were heard throughout the District.
Crosses will be banned from this month's inaugural parade in Washington, D.C.
The Jan. 20 presidential inauguration is causing further controversy by banning crosses(along with bicycles, crates, coffins, cages and statues) from the inaugural parade. The Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition is outraged. "Why were crosses singled out over any other religious symbol—the Star of David, Islamic symbols?" Mahoney asked. "This is offensive. It's, in my view, religious bigotry."
And, the phrase "under God" in the president's oath is under attack from an atheist who has filed suit to stop any prayers from being said during the ceremony.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, California, who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his inauguration.
Newdow has filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration. One wonders what he'd have to say if a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim were taking office. Or, at least I wonder. Of course, I spend time pondering things like where the phrase 'keep your eyes peeled' came from and why rainbows always start with red.
The Constitution does not require the new president to place his hand on a Bible while repeating the oath. The tradition has been kept since George Washington — with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt, who did not use a Bible when he took the oath after President William McKinley's 1901 assassination.
Newdow's suit is a little late and a little pointless but it's fun to join all the other lawsuits involved with the inauguration, isn't it? It's the American way.
2 comments:
The phrase 'keep your eyes peeled' is simply using the word 'peeled' in a figurative sense, as though your eyes were fruit and your eyelids were rind, and to peel it is to open them.
No, I don't know why I just explained that, either.
I wonder if you could peel eyeballs. The laser surgery only goes through the cornia so if you peel off that layer only the shouldn't pop. It would take some practice though
Post a Comment