theater asks impeachment question

July 28, 2003 11:47 PM

The Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, California takes the impeachment question directly to the local street and neighborhood and asks the following question on it's marquee. What is an impeachable offense? Lying to wage war? Or lying about sex? Across the country billboards and marquees have been commonly used to express political sentiment (original link from Buzzflash)
posted by thedailygrowl (11 comments total)

Slide open question...insert load.
posted by HTuttle at 11:49 PM on July 28, 2003

I like it, but I think the statement would have more impact without the answers to the questions on the marquee.
posted by caddis at 2:35 AM on July 29, 2003

Also on fotolog is a community log for marquees, but there usually aren't any political ones on there.

Tavern owner's 'Kill Em All' message a sign of the times - an article from the Seattle PI.
posted by gluechunk at 6:25 AM on July 29, 2003

arto @ 2003-07-21 17:28 said:
It`s refreshing to see a merchant willing to be honest about his politics.

I totally agree... more merchant honesty on politics I say.

Barbara @ 2003-07-28 19:29 said:
I appreciate your honesty. Maybe people will read it and start to think!

cody kinski @ 2003-07-28 21:10 said:
Yeah! Bravo! All across America people are waking up and starting to ask the serious questions they need to ask!

And the Clarke family says:
Clarke Family @ 2003-07-29 00:59 said:
Way to go, Allen Michaan!!! America is WAKING UP!!!

YAWN!
posted by Witty at 6:44 AM on July 29, 2003

manager sarah hull works on coordinating tongue and leg movement in anticipation of competing in next weeks "walk and chew gum" extravaganza. the annual "cavalcade of morans" is expected to attract patriots eager to hone thier anti-terror skills from all over the pacific northwest.
posted by quonsar at 7:40 AM on July 29, 2003

What is an impeachable offense? Lying to wage war? Or lying about sex?

This "just lying about sex" idea needs to be (so to speak) put to bed. What Clinton underwent impeachment proceedings for was lying under oath in a court of law. That's an important distinction. I don't give a flying fig newton who he had sex with or what he said about it outside that context, but lying in court displays a fundamental disregard for the structure that you're especially charged with upholding and defending as the POTUS. I think Clinton should have taken a harder fall than he did.

And before I get jumped on, no, I don't support the current Pres either. Though I don't think he thought he was lying (which may, of course, be scarier than the idea than he knew what he was doing...)
posted by weston at 8:32 AM on July 29, 2003

weston: The court proceedings where he lied were nothing but a farce, funded by right wing enemies, to embarrass him. True, he was under oath, and the better response would have been to say he would not answer questions in that area regardless of the consequences to that litigation. Nevertheless, many people do not see it as anything beyond lying about sex because of the nature of the proceeding. Regardless, which is a bigger moral sin (not legal) lying under oath in a civil suit or lying to congress and the citizens to build support for a war?
posted by caddis at 9:10 AM on July 29, 2003

Oh boy: Right Wing Christian (self described) preaches hate to the converted [ "When Randy Batten distilled his thoughts about the war against Iraq into a single phrase, "KILL EM ALL," and then displayed it on the marquee outside his bar, he knew it would cause a stir. That's what he wanted. "I don't mind the attention," he said, standing outside the doorway of the 1896 Club. "Nine-tenths of my customers agreed. And new people stopped in to tell me how much they liked it." ]
(from gluechunk's linked story, above).

Meanwhile, in other news, Oakland theatre marque preaches to the converted......

This is little more than the screeching of birds, the jabbering of monkeys.
posted by troutfishing at 9:30 AM on July 29, 2003

Hey. I can see my house from here!
posted by jaded at 9:44 AM on July 29, 2003

Regardless, which is a bigger moral sin (not legal) lying under oath in a civil suit or lying to congress and the citizens to build support for a war?

B of course. And I realize most people only bring this up to point out the absurdity of the fact that Clinton couldn't get away with a fib whose consequences were merely obstruction of justice and perjury, while Bush 43 seems to be able to get away with leading the nation into a war on the basis of a hunch and false or misleading information (not to mention a regressive economic policy that benefits friends'n'favorites). And I'd agree that the scrutiny isn't tight enough on 43 and it's probably the greater wrong. But that doesn't mean that Clinton's action was at all trivial.
posted by weston at 9:03 PM on July 29, 2003

If you find that marquee interesting (and this isn't their first political message by any means, they had the ever popular "no war for oil" on there for a bit), there is a casket store about four blocks away (I live about six blocks from the Grand Lake) that frequently has political coffins on display in there window.

For most of the last five years, their window display was a coffin that had been painted with scenes from nearby Lake Merritt. During the war, they put on display a casket painted with images of death. Among them an American soldier's helmet hanging from a makeshift tombstone and Iraqi women and children running from missiles and bombs.

They've recently switched to a new coffin that is more ambiguous i its message, but I haven't stopped to look closely yet.


They also have glossy flyers on their door that inform you "don't assume what a mortuary tells you is your best price or choice. Theirs: $1787.00. Ours: $675.00" I appreciate the information, but when I need a coffin, I won't be spending too much time on the comparison shopping.
posted by obfusciatrist at 11:59 PM on July 29, 2003