Shared publicly  - 
Interesting that the KKK wants to adopt a highway here.  When I was in high school I was the only Asian in the county and there was one Black guy there too.  We didn't have a local chapter of the KKK, but every surrounding county had Klan rallies.  Should they or anyone else be allowed to adopt a highway?  Absolutely!  That's less money that we have to spend to pick up trash.  A sign that we have evolved to the next level as a species is when we can put our emotional biases behind us and only look at the numbers.  Not as much can be said possibly for those picking up the trash since their organization plays on emotions, but diversity is what makes the world go around right?
J. Brian Waddington's profile photoJohn Foster's profile photoScott McDaniel's profile photoMike Todd's profile photo
I guess your idea about diversity means we should keep the Nazis around too? We need a few more torture freaks and death camps. I am beginning to think you are a low sort of troll and maybe we need you around in a general sense but not in the specific sense so you are into my circle where i put people i never want to see again.
+J. Brian Waddington Part of "keeping an eye on things" is keeping it out in the open.  That is diversity.  If you sweep things under the rug, they can fester and become a bigger problem than if you kept them out in the open and managed them.  I'm all for letting Nazis protest out in the open.  It lets us keep an eye on them and manage their activities.  It's well known that when you force things under ground they become more criminal.  If you ban their activities that is anti-diversity and if it's underground you can't ridicule it as easily.  Are you saying that you don't want these people out in the open so we can ridicule them?  
I know you're not a troll, John, and I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but diversity doesn't mean "anything is approved."  Allowing them to protest is different than the implicit sanction that can be argued for letting the KKK chapter do this.  I don't have strong feelings on this particular circumstance, but the diversity argument isn't the most concrete one to push.
+Scott McDaniel  One thing people are missing is my ulterior motive for supporting them in their trash pickup duties.  If you're standing on the side of a fast moving freeway, "accidents" are more likely to happen than in an area with a parade permit where they are marching with no cars.  Some people can't get past playing checkers and get into playing chess.
That's why Kim Jong Il is only loved and respected in North Korea, but your Dearest Leader is loved and respected everywhere!
I don't really see this as an explicit or explicit sanction of what the organization stands for.  As the article you linked to says Scott, if the government okaying groups to do this sort of thing implied that they sanction the group's activities, atheist groups would never be allowed to do something like this, either.

I say let the racist rednecks pick up trash if they want to.
As an update, I just got an email about a petition about this.  In it they said that "adopting" a highway gives the adopting organization rights to advertise for free there.  So there's that possible angle, though that may or may not be true (could just be the petition promoters trying to get more signatures).
Never heard of that, except for putting a sign up on an existing pole showing who adopted the highway.  That argument is a non-starter anyway.  Union County has no zoning or building codes.  Anyone can erect a billboard with no prior permission from the government.  If the Klan or any other group wanted advertising they could easily get it.
As in, there's a government-produced sign for promoting the fact that the KKK is there, being KKKleaners.  But I also assume that adoption includes paying more than enough to cover the sign?
Another point that I believe was lost in my original post is that this is definitely a publicity grab or low hanging fruit.  20 years ago there were only two minority people in the whole county.  The KKK advertising there would be like preaching to the choir so to speak. Either it's a legal ploy to file a lawsuit, or they're trying to put a sign in an area where statistically fewer people will bitch about it.  

Scott McDaniel who said the sign was government produced?  It might have to be manufactured to DOT specs, but I'm not familiar with government putting those things up.  Hypothetically speaking even if public funds are used, true intellectuals will only look at it as a hunk of metal with paint on it.  The cost of manufacture would be the close enough to the same regardless of what the sign says.
I was presenting it as a question, as most signs for Adopt-a-Highway groups are standardized and attached to government traffic signs.   
However, when I was trying to look this up, the A-a-H wikipedia page had this tidbit:  "The Adopt-A-Highway program allows any organization to participate, which became a point of controversy when the Ku Klux Klan adopted a portion of Interstate 55 just south of St. Louis, Missouri. While legally the program had to uphold the groups' rights to participate, the public outcry and repeated destruction of their sign was a cause of concern. In November 2000, the section of highway was designated as the Rosa Parks Freeway, named after the famed civil-rights heroine." - which cracked me up.
See +Scott McDaniel you're starting to get my sense of humor.  There's nothing stopping us from adopting the scheme other cities have where the street name changes every few blocks.  We can play, how many civil rights heroes can you fit into a 5 mile area!
Add a comment...