Somehow, I imagined that our cybernetic future wouldn't begin with powered armor for the elderly.
on
| § 2
My position against Alabama Chief Justice Moore unfortunately means that I am ostensibly in the same camp with dookie derby John Kelso of the Austin-American Statesman.
Buckethead has discussed the rube-factor in the current round of discussions on Alabama, writing "that this is happening in Alabama merely gives people an extra frisson of joy, because they can safely conflate religion with backwardness. It's Alabama, right?" Kelso adds weight to Buckethead's point by publishing a set of sub-Foxworthy, totally unfunny, "Alabama Commandments." G'hyuk!
When I said earlier that fat people and Catholics may be the last two acceptable bigotries in "polite" America, I forgot to include hicks, also encompassing the subclasses hillbillies, rednecks, trailer-trash, and briar-hoppers. So there are really THREE acceptable bigotries. As a sop to Buckethead, you may also include Norwegians for a total of four. (I mean, seriously, "trailer trash?" You hear "trailer park" used as code for poor and white the way you often hear "inner city" used as code for poor and black.)
If Kelso and I are in fact in the same camp opposing Judge Moore, this born and bred Ohio briar-hopper and damn proud of it is gonna walk right over and pee on his campfire. Read on to see why.
Kelso sez:
Where I differ with Justice Moore is that I think his monument has the wrong set of commandments etched on it. Moses had nothing to do with the gathering of the Alabama commandments. It was Moses' cousin, Elroy, who got them. By the way, when Elroy saw the burning bush, he lighted his cigarette with it.With that in mind, here are the Alabama commandments as told to Elroy:
Thou shalt honor thy daddy and thy mama, as soon as you can figure out who they are.
Thou shalt not marry thy 13-year-old cousin Thelma Jean.
Thou shalt not fish with dynamite, nor hunt with a rocket launcher.
Thou shalt exclaim "Roll, Tide," at least 12 times a day during football season.
Thou shalt not remove the wheels from thy neighbor's home.
Thou shalt repeat fifth grade at the age of 19.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's front-row tickets to the Merle Haggard concert.
Thou shalt not pawn thy teeth so thou can purchase a 12-pack.
Thou shalt not wear thine halter top and hot pants in the front row in church.
Haw, haw, haw. Oh, how my sides do split at your razor-sharp social commentary. THIS guy can get a weekly column, and I languish in the blog-world?
If there is any justice, his next assignment will be covering NASCAR down among the hoi polloi.
on
| § 1
Skipping through the blogosphere, I see that I am nearly alone in defending the ten commandments in Alabama. Which I find odd, given that I am not particularly religious. It just seems to me that Christianity is given little respect from the left, and from the chattering classes. Whenever the faith dares poke its head above ground, it is roundly condemned for the Inquisition, the crusades, being pro-life, out of step with the modern world, or having members who are intolerant superstitious rubes.
on
| § 4
Robert Prather's blog is undergoing a rebranding effort. What was once the Mind of Man is now Unpunished Insults. While he should have gone for a Simpson's quote rather than another boring Jefferson quote, the material there is as good as ever. Joe Bob says, "Check it out!"
on
| § 0
Over in the comments for this post, there's been some additional discussion of the whole Ten Commandments controversy.
My beloved comrade in blogging seems to feel strongly that the Judge is a fool, and furthermore a damned fool for insisting that the Commandments be displayed in his courthouse in defiance of a higher court order. I agree. He does undermine the rule of law by defying the ruling of the higher court. It could be grounds for impeachment.
But all of this is beside the point. The issue is that people are offended that the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court of law. That this is happening in Alabama merely gives people an extra frisson of joy, because they can safely conflate religion with backwardness. It's Alabama, right? All of the stubborness we see in this judge, and the contempt of the press is window dressing for the central image - the screaming of the offended.
Why are they offended? It cannot be because of the actual text of the Decalogue:
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Okay, we'll let that one slide. But the "graven image" bit in the protestant translation could be a useful admonishment.
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Taken generally, foul language isn't nice.
- Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. As long as I get Saturday off, too.
- Honor thy Father and thy Mother. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not kill. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not commit adultery. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not steal. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Again, no problem here, though it is curious that it doesn't prohibit lying in a more general sense.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Fair enough, and good advice.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. And likewise here.
These are sensible precepts for living. No one, be they Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic or Martian could honestly complain that these rules are offensive.
They are offensive because they are Christian. We are encouraged to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, despite much evidence that it is not. We are to tolerate all faiths, all creeds. Except one. Curiously this is the one faith that the majority of Americans embrace. Does the presence in a courthouse of the Ten Commandments amount to a tacit promotion of Christian doctrine as the fount of jurisprudence? Yes. Because they are. We live under a Christian law. This is unsurprising.
What should we do, adopt Bushido or Sharia? Why is this an issue? Those commandments are the center of our law. Do we make murder legal because killing is forbidden in the Commandments?
The Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of a state religion. It does not forbid the government, or officials of our government from having religious beliefs or expressing them. It does not prevent us from acknowledging that the root of our law is Judeo Christian. The founders believed that religious faith was not merely compatible with liberty and the health of the republic, they thought it essential. We should not be so quick to banish it from our sight because the usual suspects are offended by it, as they are offended by so many other things that are good.
on
| § 7
By way of the The Spoons Experience, this enchanting fantasy story.
on
| § 0
Gov. Davis is accusing the Republican Party of a "Right-Wing Power Grab." Technically, he is correct. The Republicans do want to take the governorship away from Davis. However, in any larger sense, he is wrong. Representative Issa, who sponsored the recall drive, was making use of existing California law to effect a change in the occupant of the Governor's seat. This is not a power grab in the sense that we normally mean it - like when General, later President Musharraf made a power grab in Pakistan.
In general, I do not approve of recalls. I think changing the result of an election before the next scheduled election is corrosive to republican virtues. By that I mean the virtues that sustain our republic, and the rule of law. Recalls are democratic. But undiluted democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Recalls reinforce the idea of the permanent campaign, reinforce the politics of grievance and revenge, and are generally just a bad idea. Politicians should be removed from office for two reasons only - criminal misconduct and by being voted out of office in a regular election. Ok, and if they die in office.
That being said, Gray Davis is a fecal fez, and I'll be happy to see the end of him. He is now considering apologizing for the damage he has done to our largest state, months after everyone else in the world realized that he had completely screwed the pooch. If the Republicans win the gubernatorial election that is in my view a good thing, and could help ensure other things I think are good - like continued Republican dominance in the federal government.
And the spectacle! Pornographers, celebrities big and small, punk rockers, the Terminator, Bill "I can lose to the most hated man in CA" Simon, Ariana by god Huffington. This will be the most entertaining election in years. People are already mocking the recall election. But many are mocking it for the wrong reasons. When I hear ridicule of the broad spread of candidates, I think, this is what it should be like. Every one should be involved. Politics should not be reserved to the ranks of cloned, hairsprayed, button down minds of the professional political class. This republic is for us, we should be involved in it at the highest and lowest levels. This kind of freedom is what makes us what we are, good and bad.
But far, far more good than bad. And if Arnold scares the Europeans now, wait til we amend the constitution to allow him to run for President. I would give anything to see them crap their pants when he sits down across the negotiating table.
on
| § 0
Rap music is rotting society! So sayeth that guy!
Excuse my while I go prepare a righteous fisking. In the meanwhile, enjoy the article.
on
| § 0
At the risk of sounding like some damn broken record, this is ridiculous.
ABCNEWS.com has obtained a draft of the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or VICTORY Act, which could be introduced to Congress this fall, and which appears to have been prepared by the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure would give law enforcement increased subpoena powers and more leeway over wire-tap evidence and on classifying some drug offenses as terrorism.
Gut reactions, in order:
More coverage of the Victor/Victoria Act here and here.
Question: what the hell is a "narcoterrorist?" The dude who sells you a bag of oregano?
on
| § 0
At the heart of the refusal by Alabama Chief Justice Ray Moore to remove a monument bearing the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama State Courthouse is a familiar doctrine: nullification..
Moore, who installed the monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago, contends it represents the moral foundation of American law and that a federal judge has no authority to make him remove it.The 11th Circuit earlier this year agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who held the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.
Actually, buddy, I think they do. That question was settled a while back, the last time nullification was seriously advanced as a going concern.
Bum-chapeau.
on
| § 4
