Posted by antonsirius on 11/8/2010 5:48:00 PM (view original):
As for the sculpture of Moses on the east side of the building, my_kids, when you were rejecting the most popular answer and checking it out for yourself, did you bother to find out what the sculptor himself says he meant by it?

“Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East.

Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.


Religion had nothing to do with his choice of Moses at all.

Did you mean to say that culture had nothing to do with Moses being on the "Eastern Piedmont"?

Posted by antonsirius on 11/9/2010 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Four posts, and you managed to not respond at all to the actual facts creil and I presented to you about the sculptures on the Supreme Court building.

Thanks for proving my point. It's been nice talking to you, m_k.

Heh...So thanks for proving my point by trying to prove a point out of my proving the point of your point? I mean really. I apologize for being sarcastic, but you have to admit you have become the object of sport. You own doing, but I still apologize.

Posted by creilmann on 11/8/2010 6:03:00 PM (view original):

From the Smithsonian Archive of American Art, a letter from the sculptor of the courtroom friezes to the architect of the building.  In it he describes how in one of the friezes, a "figure of law is resting on the tablet of the ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights".  The Bill of Rights are depicted on a stone tablet with Roman numerals.  Arguing that the tablets on the oak doors must be the Ten Commandments because they are on stone tablets, carries little weight when you read that one of the sculptors created similar stone tablets to represent the Bill of Rights inside the courtroom.

Moses is seated between Solon and Confucius, so sure, you can run with that as an example of the Ten Commandments' heavy influence on our judicial system if you're really that desperate.  But if Moses was meant to be featured so prominently, then why put him on the back (east) of the Supreme Court?  The grand entrance with the massive marble steps that everyone enters through is on the west side, facing the Capitol complex, National Mall and Washington Monument.  Surly a figure so central to our laws would be displayed on that side.

You may have a point. When I get the time I will need to research this. The same sculpture is at the Oscar Straus Memorial in D.C. It is has also been called the Ten Commandments. Straus was Jewish. But is his memorial actually the ten amendments? I can see both. I think I will research some of Weinman's and Gilbert's letters from that period.

I thank you for not trying to insert ridicule in your argument. It shows you have good taste.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 11/9/2010 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 11/8/2010 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Getting your ***-kicked, Mykids.  I'd just mea culpa this one.

I'm really interested in a different question though...the Tea Party has been getting killed (and rightly so in my opinion) for it's "Keep your government hands off my healthcare" line while also staunchly opposing any reductions to Medicare.  Do you somehow resolve that or disown it as bad tea-partying?

Really? That is an amusing comment. But expected from you and our President.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks.

Posted by rlahann on 11/9/2010 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mykids_31206 on 11/9/2010 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 11/8/2010 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Getting your ***-kicked, Mykids.  I'd just mea culpa this one.

I'm really interested in a different question though...the Tea Party has been getting killed (and rightly so in my opinion) for it's "Keep your government hands off my healthcare" line while also staunchly opposing any reductions to Medicare.  Do you somehow resolve that or disown it as bad tea-partying?

Really? That is an amusing comment. But expected from you and our President.

Wait, what?  You've got some serious persecution complex.  

I was asking an honest question.  Where should the Tea Party stand on Medicare?

Posted by antonsirius on 11/9/2010 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Awesome. Rand Paul is already backtracking from his campaign promise to reject earmarks:

He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks.

Posted by lesliechow on 11/10/2010 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Lmao!  Taking either of those windbag parties seriously?  What a joke.  Let's choose a new group of leaders from outside the corruption machine.

Posted by lesliechow on 11/10/2010 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Lmao!  Taking either of those windbag parties seriously?  What a joke.  Let's choose a new group of leaders from outside the corruption machine.