Fun with the First Amendment ...

It might make my contributing-to-the-world-already-instead-of-just-studying-to-do-so readers a bit jealous to know this, but I am sitting in my bed in my sweats at 2:30 on a Wednesday afternoon. Not because I am sick (I am mostly better now, thanks) but because I can. Oh, and because I am writing a 45-page paper, which I can conveniently do in my bed. (And your jealousy lessens considerably here.)

So obviously I am not writing it right this second. I am researching, or was until I found some choice gems to share. The Supreme Court ruled today for Pleasant Grove City (yep, our very own Pleasant Grove, Utah) and I must say, I quite enjoy it when Supreme Court justices include the "Beef. It's What's for Dinner" slogan and the lyrics from "Imagine" on the same page. And when a few pages later, they talk about a monument for a "heroic dog" named Balto. (Because apparently New York City wanted to recognize this "sled dog who brought medicine to Nome, Alaska, during a diphtheria epidemic." I think I should go to this monument next time I am in NYC. H., this seems like something you would like to do with me, right!? And K., one more good reason for you to visit!)

Anyway, the crux of the opinion: The First Amendment does not require cities "to accept monuments for other dogs who are claimed to be equally worthy of commemoration." (Yes, I took that quoted material out of context a bit. The opinion actually focuses on non-trivial matters like government speech. See for yourself if you want a more accurate version: the opinion here or the NYT synopsis here.) And now, although I generally find it more mentally taxing to write about the First Amendment than read about it, I should really get to work ...