Death Penalty Update

The Death Penalty continues to demonstrate it’s a really bad idea. More and more states have halted executions due to questions related to lethal injection procedures and more and more editorials and legal experts are calling for its abolishment.

The latest newspaper to add its voice to the call for abolishment is the Sentinel of central Pennsylvania which noted that capital punishment has failed to deter crime, has lost favor with the public, risks innocent lives, and prolongs the suffering of victims' family members.

In the meantime there have been 12 executions so far this year, eleven of which have been in Texas. Will somebody PLEASE test the water in Texas? The only possible explanation for a state that feels it’s necessary to carry out executions at its current rate AND produced George W. Bush is contaminated water which affects brain cells! The other execution was in Oklahoma.

Cathy Henderson, the lady convicted in Texas of murdering a 3 month old baby that she was babysitting for, has had her execution date pushed back until June. An Austin judge granted a 60 day stay in “the interest of justice” although he said he was unsure of the legal correctness of Henderson’s lawyer’s intended appeal. The appeal is to be based upon the claim that new head trauma technology can show that the death of the child was in fact caused by a fall. Henderson has always claimed that she dropped the child by accident and then panicked. Medical examiners testifying at her trial said that the baby’s injuries were inconsistent with a fall. Why do I smell another conviction based upon voodoo science? We’re talking about a death sentence whose foundation is simply someone’s opinion. That’s more evidence that the term “Texas Justice” is an oxymoron.

South Dakota’s first execution since 1976, delayed last year due to Governor Rounds’ directive to hold all executions until the states lethal injection law could be investigated, has been rescheduled for July of this year. Apparently the South Dakota legislature corrected the issues with the Death Penalty statute. It seems to me that the legislature of South Dakota, based upon its Death Penalty and abortion activities may be out of touch with the South Dakota electorate based upon its activities. Allow me to suggest that the good people of South Dakota might want to do something about that.

If the South Dakota execution proceeds it will reduce the number of states with Death Penalty statutes that have never used them to four, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey and Kansas.

There are approximately 22 executions scheduled around the country, fully half of which are scheduled in Texas. Unfortunately that’s only through September.

Boy that was a depressing update. What the hell is with New Jersey anyway? I would have thought by now, given the commission’s 12-1 recommendation, that some movement toward abolition would be evident.

Stem Cell Research and Global Warming

We’re in trouble on both counts. Let’s start with global warming. The consensus of scientific opinion is that Global Warming is a reality and there is a high probability, 90% or so, that it is being driven by human activity. Both the Japanese and the European Union have started to move out on solutions. However, if the U.S. and China don’t get on the bandwagon, there’s not much the Japanese and European efforts can accomplish other than leaving us in the dust economically.

Why do I say that? It’s because some 85% of Americans agree with the scientific assessment and will be attracted to products and services that address the issue, especially when backed by government support and subsidies.

There’s a similar issue with Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research. This is a frontier with the potential of revolutionizing medical science. Many states, including New Jersey and California, are financing ESC research on their own but the reality is that federal funding is needed in order to keep pace with Japan and Europe on this front as well.

Bush’s Evangelical Christian based aversion to this technology is adding to the potential that the U.S. will become a scientific backwater. Claiming that the embryos that are the source of ESCs are potential humans is horribly misleading. These excess embryos are going to eventually be destroyed. That’s reality. No one is going to suddenly start maturing them in-vitro to develop viable human beings so why not use them for research? There is no moral issue here. The so-called moral value involved is purely imaginary so let’s stop the nonsense.

Is it possible the scientific community is wrong about Global Warming and Senator Inhofe and Fox News are right? Sure it’s possible; it’s about as possible as I’m going to be the next president due to a grass roots write in vote. Anyway, what would be the harm it taking measures to reduce the amount of hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere and take some other environmentally smart steps, such as weaning ourselves away from a dependence on Middle Eastern oil, as well? Oh yeah, that’s right, it would hurt Bush and Cheney’s big oil buddies at Halliburton and Exxon.

Is it possible that we’ll all go to hell if we allow ESC research? Sure it’s possible; it’s almost as possible as the scientific community is wrong about Global Warming. I go back to the quote attributed to Galileo, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use.”

Bottom line, the Senate should approve the ESC research bill and we should vote out any politician that opposes either ESC research or taking government action to address Global Warming. Who's going to be the JFK of the Global Warming crisis and promise a timetable for a solution like JFK committed to a timetable for reaching the moon?

Another Easter in the Books

Boy those three days went by fast. Good Friday is the first holiday I get after the long Christmas break (yes I said Christmas and not Holiday). Unfortunately the three days flew by. Sigh, I really need a change of occupation, going back is getting harder and harder.

By the way, did somebody repeal Easter Sunday when I wasn’t looking? Thanksgiving, Christmas Day and Easter Sunday I remember as days when just about everything was closed. This Easter everything seemed like business as usual. You couldn’t tell the difference from a regular Sunday, or Saturday or weekday for that matter. I’m not much for religion (how’s THAT for an understatement) but the “business as usual” trend on all holidays strikes me as a cultural loss.

Around the globe things aren’t getting any better in Iraq and a recent Newsweek poll says that 47% of Americans, including 34% of college graduates, reject the Theory of Evolution and believe the universe was created in 7 days, less than 10,000 years ago, as depicted in Genesis and calculated by Bishop Ussher.

Well, at least 53% do accept evolution. One has to wonder where the 34% of college graduates that believe Genesis is literally true got their degrees. Could it have been from the Podunk Bible College?

Time magazine raised some eyebrows by publishing an article, by its religion editor no less, supporting teaching about the Bible in public school. The idea isn’t to teach it as scripture but rather to focus on the Bible as a literary reference and the influence of the Bible throughout history.

I talked about this once before here Bible Textbook for Public Schools Planned and I don’t see anything that’s changed. Even the Time article stresses the danger of a Bible course becoming religious instruction, but that’s exactly what will happen in some areas of the country resulting in a widening of the cultural abyss that already exists between certain regions.

The other issue is that the presentation won’t be even handed. If you talk about the Hebrew exodus from slavery to freedom, you also need to address the Bible’s failure to condemn the institution of slavery in general. One needs to balance the feel good stories with the dark side represented by the “hard passages,” and the good achieved by people adhering to the Bible’s positive moral messages with the evil caused by people adhering to its negative moral messages.

Given that the only Bible study curriculums are those being developed by groups whose objectivity is, to say the least, highly suspect, I figure the chances of a balanced presentation are about zero.

That being the case, I’m opposed to isolating the Bible for special consideration. Why not combine it with other literary references? A literary reference course covering the most famous quotes from Shakespeare, the Bible, Mark Twain and Greek Mythology wouldn’t bother me one bit.

HBO’s Rome – Series Finale

There were only ten episodes in the final season instead of twelve so it’s all over. The series finale opens in the aftermath of the battle of Actium with Antony and Vorenus leaving the smoking ruins of Antony’s fleet. They retreat to Alexandria and take refuge in the palace at while Octavian attempts to either negotiate a surrender from Antony or an act of treachery from Vorenus. He is successful at neither. Antony challenges him to single combat and Vorenus remains loyal just as PUllo predicted.

Finally Octavian finds the weak link in Cleopatra. In exchange for promises that she will retain the throne, and that no harm will come to Caesarion, she fakes her own suicide. This leads Antony into doing the real thing. As Vorenus braces his sword Antony pushes himself upon it in classic Roman fashion. Vorenus then cleans the make-up from Antony’s face and dresses him in his Roman General’s armor.

As Vorenus places Antony’s body on the throne Cleopatra shows up. That leads to a heated exchange between Vorenus and Cleopatra with Vorenus warning her that Octavian can’t keep his promise about sparing Caesarion’s life.

After a brief audience with Octavian, Cleopatra realizes that Vorenus is right, and that Octavian has played her for a fool. She ends up following Antony, courtesy of an asp bite, and Vorenus flees with Caesarion.

Octavian sends Pullo after Vorenus and they meet where they once had awaited the messengers leaving to murder Cleopatra. The two of them decide to attempt and get Caesarion out of harms way. Vorenus agrees to accompany them as far as Judea.

When I heard that I thought I had nailed the ending, but it wasn’t to be. Along the way they encounter a Roman roadblock. They try to talk their way past but the officer in charge tricks Caesarion into revealing himself. In the ensuing melee the two manage to overcome the Roman troops but Vorenus is seriously wounded and asks Pullo to take him home.

They arrive in Rome just in time for Octavian’s triumph where Atia is putting Livia on notice that she doesn’t take a back seat to anyone as she usurps Livia’s position of precedence. In the ensuing scenes of the triumph, very much reminiscent of Caesar’s triumph, they actually make you feel sorry for Atia as she is clearly remembering Antony and days past. The wounded Vorenus in the meantime is reconciled with his children.

Pullo reports to Octavian that he killed Caesarion himself and that Lucius Vorenus “didn’t make it.” It’s hard to tell from the look on Octavian’s face whether he believes Pullo or not, but in any event he rewards him and send him on his way. In the final scene Pullo tells Caesarion that “he bought it.” As they walk down the crowded Roman street, and Caesarion begins plotting to avenge his mother and his father, Pullo says, “Listen about your father…”

So they ended it very open ended. Did Octavian believe Pullo or not? If he has any doubts it would be easy enough for him to find out. Or is it that he values Pullo’s friendship enough to let it slide? Is Vorenus really dead? We only have Pullo’s word for it and he was lying about Caesarion. Is there a possible sequel? It’s certainly possible but I find it doubtful.

So each of us can put whatever spin on it we want. Personally I think Vorenus is alive and living with Lyde and the children on the farm that Caesar gave him, Pullo will convince Caesarion of his true parentage and Octavian knows full well that Vorenus and Caesarion are alive but chooses to ignore, it as long as they present no danger to him, out of his desire to preserve his friendship with Pullo. But hey, I could be wrong.

The Jersey Boys Illegal Immigrant Campaign

A New Jersey shock radio station in South Jersey is causing some ripples as two disc jockeys, known as the Jersey Boys, have started a campaign encouraging people to report suspected illegal immigrants either to the radio station or immigration authorities.

Some Hispanic groups are upset with the campaign, which the disc jockeys have named “La Cuca Gotcha,” calling it racist and threatening a boycott of the show’s sponsors if the disc jockeys don’t stop the campaign. The disc jockeys themselves poo-poo the charges of racism and say that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, the campaign is not targeted at Hispanics since not all illegals are Hispanic, and that they’re providing a public service.

Yeah right. I think the name for the campaign, “La Cuca Gotcha,” a take-off on la cucaracha, Spanish for cockroach, gives the lie to the claim that the campaign isn’t aimed at Hispanics. But they are right that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and it’s unclear how one can seriously criticize a call to report lawbreakers.

Certainly the two disc jockeys have the right to encourage the reporting of illegal immigrants if, in their opinion, it’s the proper thing to do. On the other hand, folks that think the notion stinks to high heaven, have the right to criticize what’s being done and not buy the products of those whose money makes such a campaign possible. That’s called democracy in action.

So what’s my opinion? I’m not really sure. Illegal immigration is one of those topics where the abstract theory can clash with practical day to day reality. In the abstract, the laws of the nation should be respected, the borders should be secured and those here illegally should be summarily shipped back to where they came from. The day to day reality says that might be a really dumb idea.

This is not a one size fits all category. Some of the illegal immigrants have set down permanent roots, pay taxes and are an asset to their communities. Other are just so much trash and not worth worrying about. Then again, one could say that for citizens also.

I think I would be in favor of a limited amnesty plan. If you meet a certain set of criteria, you can get temporary resident status with a time limit, by the expiration of the time limit you either became a citizen or lost your temporary resident status. I would include such things as having a permanent job, a permanent residence and no criminal record as part of the amnesty criteria. I would include learning English as part of the citizenship requirement but not as a prerequisite for obtaining temporary resident status. Anyone that couldn’t meet the temporary resident criteria, or failed to complete the citizenship process, would be liable for summary deportation.

This seems like a reasonable approach to me. I am totally opposed to a blanket amnesty and deporting people that are industrious, hard working and effectively de facto Americans offends my sense of decency. Besides, who would cut my lawn? I don’t know for certain but I’m willing to bet that the guys working for my current lawn service are illegal. They’re nice guys that work hard and I wouldn’t want to deport them. See what I mean about abstract theory and practical day to day reality?

HBO’s Rome - Episode 21

Several years have passed between episode 20 and episode 21. Antony has gone a bit native, sporting both Egyptian eye make-up and tattoos, and has two children by Cleopatra. In the opening scenes, he is using a slave dressed in a deer outfit to instruct Cleopatra in the finer points of hunting while emissaries from Rome try to negotiate a resumption of the grain shipments from Egypt as there is an impending famine in Rome. Antony purposely pushes the negotiations to fail and Cleopatra, when the padded mock arrows run out, switches to a real arrow and kills the slave. The Romans are aghast at the callousness but Cleopatra and Antony walk out totally unconcerned. We then find out that Antony is trying to goad Octavian into war. He doesn’t want to start the war himself because he’s afraid that will cost the good will of the Roman people.

On the domestic front, Vorenus is still the Roman Prefect and appears to be the companion of Caeserion who is pressing for information about his father. Vorenus describes Pullo in terms that could also apply to Caesar but slips up slightly when describing Pullo’s appetite. Caeserion had heard that Caesar was a modest eater.

Back in Rome, Pullo has become a leader of men and, as leader of the Aventine, is struggling with the grain shortage. He appeals to Octavian, but the rest of the city granaries are in as bad or worse shape. Only the army has grain. After a quick consultation with Agrippa and Maecenas, Octavian decides to send three legions to Africa in order to free up some grain, but this is only a very temporary measure.

It’s becoming clear that only a war will convince Antony to restore the grain shipments, but Octavian is worried that Antony’s popularity with the people is still too strong for him to move openly against the east.

At home, Octavia now has a daughter named Antonia and Atia is still waiting, and still expects, Antony to send for her. Octavian suddenly decides to send Octavia and Atia to Egypt. After a prolonged sex scene, in which the nudity was maximized but the S&M limited to a jump start slap from Livia, Livia asks why Octavian sent Octavia and Atia to Egypt, but before he answers, she works it out for herself. Either Antony rejects them in which case the people will turn against him for humiliating his Roman wife Octavia for Cleopatra or, if he still has feelings for Atia, he will return to her and, at her entreaty, restore the grain shipments. Either way Octavian has solved his problem. Either the grain shipments are resumed or Octavian can now wage war against Antony with the support of the people. Livia acknowledges Octavian’s move with the compliment “Cleaver Boy.” She’s been living with him for four or five years and she just noticed?

The trip to Egypt is, as Octavian figured it would be, a disaster. Antony refuses to even see Octavia and Atia. Only Jocasta, much to the distress of Posca, comes out to greet them in the sweltering heat while they’re waiting outside the front door to the palace. Finally Antony sends Vorenus to send them home. Atia takes it out on Vorenus, first slapping him, then pushing him and finally asking him if he would dare use force on women of the Julii. Vorenus admits that he wouldn’t dare but points out that the men Antony sent with him would have no such hesitations. As they’re leaving Octavia says to Vorenus, "You tell my husband he's cowardly scum."

On his return to the palace Vorenus finds Posca and Jocasta planning to leave with Octavia and Atia. Vorenus allows them to leave but turns down Posca’s entreaties that he come with them. He asks Posca to tell Pullo to kiss his children for him.

Upon arriving back in Rome Atia has figured out that Octavian used her and greets him with a slap across the face. So Octavian gets whacked twice this episode, once each from his wife and mother, and Atia has the distinction of, through the course of the show, smacking Antony, Vorenus and Octavian. But it’s Posca who provides the real prize, the last will and testament of Antony and Cleopatra which, among other things, they direct that Antony be buried in Egypt and bequeath the western empire to Caesarion. That, plus Antony’s spurning of Octavia, is more than enough ammunition for Octavian to turn the Roman people against Antony and he begins planning for war.

As part of that preparation he asks Pullo to come with him to Egypt in the hopes that his friendship with Vorenus, who remains loyal to Antony, can be used to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Octavian indicates that Antony and Caesarion must die but hopefully very few other than them. Pullo is clearly uncomfortable with the idea of killing Caesarion especially considering that Caesarion may in fact be his son. Octavian calls Pullo his “old friend” and says that it will be like old times, “another adventure.” I figure the chumming up is a sure sign that a falling out is coming, most likely over Caeserion.

Back at the collegium, Pullo keeps a tongueless Memmio, who clearly wasn’t killed in the fighting at the end of the last episode, in a cage and has taken up with Gaia. Late one night Memmio escapes his cage and ambushes Pullo, knocking him unconscious, but before he can finish the job with a rather large knife, Gaia intervenes and kills Memmio, but gets stabbed twice. As she’s lying in bed dying from the knife wounds she admits to Pullo that she poisoned Eirene (aha, she did do it!). Pullo goes from grief over Gaia’s fate to cold rage and strangles her. He then dumps her body, like so much trash, into some stagnant muddy water.

When Antony comes looking for Posca, Vorenus delivers Octavia’s message. Antony challenges Vorenus to tell him what he thinks of Octavia’s assessment. Vorenus tells Antony that he’s no coward but that he has a disease of the soul that will eat away at him until he dies. When Antony asks him how he can be so sure of his diagnosis, Vorenus tells him it’s because he recognizes the symptoms, because he has the same disease. That’s probably a dead giveaway that Vorenus will not survive the series.

No sign of Timon this episode, I can only assume he and his family are now in Jerusalem.

So we’re coming to something of a conclusion here. It looks like either a Pullo vs. Vorenus or Pullo vs. Octavian confrontation or both. Like I said the sudden acknowledgement by Octavian of his friendship with Pullo strikes me as a sure sign that a fracture is coming, and the whole disease of the soul thing strikes me as a sign that Vorenus is as doomed as the friendship between Pullo and Octavian. Caesarion may well be the focal point around which the climax of the series occurs. And how does Timon fit in I wonder? My best guess is somehow Pullo manages to rescue Caesarion and they escape to Judea. There they encounter Timon, who has established himself in the sheep business, and who offers them a sanctuary of sorts. Then we can have a final scene some 25 years later with an elderly Pullo and an adult Caesarion as shepherds witnessing the birth of Jesus.

You do realize, that if this is in fact the way it ends, I’ll be impossible to live with for months.

Historically Cleopatra sent Caeserion to the port of Berenice for safety but his escorts either betrayed him to Octavian or were lured into bringing him back to Alexandria. In either event, Octavian had him eliminated for reasons of state. Neither Pullo nor Vorenus would be that dumb, so this doesn't strike me as a viable choice. I guess that we shall see what we shall see.

The U.S. Attorney Firings

If you’re not outraged at this one, you’re either not paying attention or don’t understand what appears to have occurred.

This is so incredible it’s almost difficult to believe that even the Bush administration could be this freaking stupid.

Let’s see, how to explain this one. It appears that the Bush administration is using an obscure provision in the Patriot Act, intended to allow for the rapid replacement of U.S. Attorneys killed by terrorist action, to replace attorneys that haven’t co-operated politically with the Republican Party. Oh yeah, and to do so without the approval of the nominee by the Senate. In other words, they’re stepping around the advise and consent provision of the U.S. Constitution!

By co-operating politically I mean prosecuting Democrats on corruption charges, whether it is justified or not, and not prosecuting republicans on corruption charges, whether it is justified or not, in order to influence the outcome of elections!

The stupidity factor comes in from the literal avalanche of e-mails floating around showing (a) this was precisely what they were doing and (b) that the White House, including the ever popular Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, and probably Georgie himself, were in this up to their necks.

Then Gonzales gets up in front of Congress and lies about it so blatantly that only a complete idiot could have believed him.

The first prime example is the U.S. Attorney from New Mexico who appears to have been fired because he resisted pressure from Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, applied in a phone call before last year's election, to indict Democrats in a high-profile corruption scandal! The second prime example is the U.S. Attorney from San Diego, who was apparently fired because she successfully prosecuted a Republican Congressman!

On the flip side, a U.S. Attorney from New Jersey appears to have retained his job because he gave in to pressure to open an investigation against Bob Menendez just prior to last year’s election, an investigation that the Republicans used as the only basis for their barrage of negative ads about Menendez. Luckily the people of New Jersey weren’t taken in by that nonsense.

Hey, it could have been worse, Ms. Miers, First Admirer of Bush the Unhinged, wanted to replace ALL 93 U.S. Attorneys with loyal Republican appointees that would toe the party line and follow orders. This is the kind of person that Bush felt was appropriate to nominate for the Supreme Court? Now, more than ever, I’m convinced I was right about her. At least Alito, conservative as he may be, is a man of integrity and not just a political hack.

Gonzalez definitely has to go. Twisting the law and trying an end run around Congress for political reasons is bad, but lying to Congress about it is unforgivable. In the meantime what about Bush and his gang of incompetents? Nixon got found out by accident, but these yahoos held Congress and the rest of us in such contempt that they didn’t even try to hide what they were doing!

It’s important to note the difference between this incident and the not unusual step of replacing all U.S. Attorneys when a new president enters office. First of all, those replacements are all reviewed and approved by Congress in compliance with the advise and consent clause. These appointees are on an “interim basis” and it appears the administration can delay putting them before Congress indefinitely. This brings me a side issue, how the hell could such a provision get by the goddamned Congress? Are those assholes all asleep down there? I guess the ACLU, which I thought at the time was being a little hysterical about the Patriot Act, was right after all.

Second, what’s unusual here is the replacement of the president’s own appointees. One has to ask why? Rarely is a U.S. Attorney replaced after a second term election other than for gross incompetence. The White House line is they were replaced because they didn’t aggressively address “Voter Fraud.” The problem is no one seems to be aware of any fraud in the districts where the firings occurred. Yes, “Voter Fraud,” that’s Republicanese for locking out Blacks and other minorities who tend to vote Democrat.

Please explain to me why this administration, with its disdain for the constitution and its penchant for bald faced lying, should not be impeached? How much is enough? They’ve been lying and trying to run around the law since day one! And yes I mean the whole administration. Bush and Cheney should both be booted out and Pelosi (heaven help us) should be installed as interim president until the next election.

Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation

This is a case before the Supreme Court which asks whether or not taxpayers have the legal standing to bring a case against spending by the executive branch of the government, which they claim violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, simply because they are taxpayers.

Normally, one cannot make a legal claim unless one can show a direct injury. The government spending money on a program you disapprove of is not considered a direct injury and you can’t sue simply because a minuscule portion of that money came from your tax dollars. It’s a good rule because otherwise we’d have total chaos. However there is one exception on the books at the moment and that’s related to congressional spending in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In Flast v. Cohen (1968) the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer had standing to challenge congressional assistance to religious schools and in Bowen v. Kendrick (1988) the court held that a taxpayer had standing to challenge grants to religious institutions.

The question here is whether simply being a taxpayer is enough to confer the legal standing to challenge aspects of Bush the Unhinged’s Faith Based Initiatives program.

This is a non-trivial question and 11 states, led by Indiana but including states such as Michigan and Washington, have filed Amicus Briefs supporting the government (Hein) concerned that widening the exception to the executive branch could open the floodgates for a host of lawsuits. The state’s Amicus Brief actually calls for the overruling of Flast as a doctrinal aberration.

Beyond the Amicus Brief by the states you have the usual Christian Oriented suspects supporting the government and the usual Liberal suspects supporting the FfRF with Amicus Briefs. The Thomas More Center, ACLJ and Christian Legal Society support the government while the ACLU, The Center for Secular Humanism and The American Atheists support the FfRF.

I had to raise an eyebrow at the ACLJ saying that’s its time to stop extending special privileges to taxpayers trying to maintain the separation of church and state! Or, as the ACLJ puts it, stop extending special privileges to those “separatists.” Err, isn’t the separation of church and state a fundamental American principal that we should all be fighting to maintain? Aren’t all good Americans supposed to be separatists? That whirring sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spinning in their graves.

On the serious side, the Anti-defamation League, the Joint Baptist Congress and the American Jewish Congress all support the FfRF.

I guess the question becomes is the executive branch obligated to abide by the Establishment Clause? To my mind, since the executive branch is dependent upon funds appropriated by Congress and the Establishment Clause restricts Congress with respect to religion, then the executive branch is clearly obligated to respect the 1st Amendment. Although I’m pretty there are people in this country that would debate this one or at least argue that Christianity is an exception.

If that’s the case, who has the standing to challenge an action of the executive branch with respect to the Establishment Clause if not citizens and taxpayers of the United States? Allow me to suggest that any action of the Federal Government, be it the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch, which violates the Constitution of the United States, is a direct injury to a citizen of the United States and therefore any citizen of the United States has legal standing to challenge that action in a Federal Court.

Ain’t that a wonderful, theoretical, high morality stand? The problem is how practical is it? Even a cursory glance through the news will tell you that there are far too many people in this country with too much money, too much time on their hands and ideas that are just too strange for prime time.

So how does one protect the legitimate rights of citizens of the United States while avoiding a chaotic avalanche of absurd lawsuits? That’s the question the court will be wrestling with.

In this particular case I think the court should leave the Flast decision alone. It’s been around for almost 40 years and no avalanche has occurred so far. So, unless there is reason to believe a significant change in government policy is about to occur which would lead to that avalanche, in which case you DEFINITELY do not want to gut Flast, there’s no reason to fix it if it ain’t broke.

While I would love to see the court reign in the executive branch’s tendency to be a Christian enclave, I think that is an aberration of this administration and the proper path for fixing it is the political process. If the majority of the American people truly don’t have a problem with an “Office of Faith-based Initiatives” in federal and state governments, then so be it. Those of us that do, always have the option of moving to a non-theocracy such as Holland. I really need to get over there and do some apartment hunting just in case. Maybe I should buy a summer home there?

What do I think will happen? It’s hard to say. It’s still too early to know with any degree of certainty the kind of position Roberts and Alito will take on this type of question. I can almost guarantee that this court will not extend Flast to the executive branch and will therefore deny standing in this particular case. I can only hope that they will leave Flast alone and not narrow it, or worse yet, overrule it totally. Like I said before, if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it, and I see no evidence that this particular area of the law is broke.

HBO’s Rome – Episode 20

Oh boy, only four episodes left, so little time and so many characters to kill off. Well they made a good start this episode. Eirene dies after what appears to have been a miscarriage. Was this the result of a concoction given to her by Gaia in her tea? Only time will tell since they didn’t make this obvious. They hinted at it, but hey, you never know.

Elsewhere on the domestic front, while Pullo is in mourning, Vorenus has Octavian and Antony’s gold stolen out from under him. It’s obvious that inside information was required, and Pullo and Vorenus initially suspect Mascius, until Vorenus retrieves a straw figure that Lucius is playing with and remembers seeing a similar figure being offered a scantily clad girl by one of Memmio’s men. This leads Vorenus to discover his daughter’s treachery, which in turns leads to a knock down drag out fight with Vorena the Elder, during which she accuses him of murdering Niobe. Vorenus walks out infuriated.

In the meantime, on the historic front, after making a speech about Roman wifely virtues, Octavian cavalierly selects a wife for himself with about the same emotion as picking out a new toga. He gets introduced and immediately asks the girl to marry him. The girl is Livia of course and with her comes her son Tiberius. The fact that Livia had to divorce Tiberius’s father in order to marry Octavian doesn’t seem to bother either of them. Later, Octavian asks Livia if her husband or father ever beat her. A little surprised she answers that she never gave them cause. Octavian says that he will beat her on occasion, not because she will give him cause, but because it gives him sexual pleasure. Livia accepts that without blinking an eye. Well, looks like we’re heading for S&M in some future episode. Is there any detestable activity we’ve missed? Lying, murder, thievery, drugs, adultery, voluntary homosexuality, incest, S&M, no, I think we’ve got them all covered.

In the meantime, Octavian gets an earful about the sham Antony and Octavia’s marriage has turned into. This leads to a confrontation with Antony, who is still bedding Atia and ignoring Octavia, and Agrippa, who is bedding Octavia. Octavian threatens to make Antony a laughing stock by revealing Octavia’s infidelity unless Antony heads for his Provinces in the east. Antony, deciding that discretion is the better part of valor, decides to go east but before he leaves, promises Atia that he will send for her. Agrippa apologizes to Octavian, receives his forgiveness and then breaks it off with Octavia. Octavia calls him a coward to his face and then announces she’s having a baby, father unknown. Agrippa is not being portrayed very well is he? And he's the most admirable character on the show at the moment.

Vorenus, upset over the scene with his daughter, decides to hook back up with Antony. Back in a Prefect’s uniform he arrives with Antony in Alexandria to find a gauze dress clad Cleopatra ready to get down to business. Why do I suspect that Antony has already forgotten his promise to Atia?

Back in Rome, we have a brief scene of Timon and his family leaving for Jerusalem. Jerusalem? Now what?

Pullo takes over at the collegium from Vorenus and begins “negotiation” with Memmio and the gangs Memmio has talked into backing him. This “negotiation” consists of a pitched battle in which Memmio gets his tongue bit out by Pullo and the gigolo that seduced Vorenus’s daughter gets an axe in his chest. The episode ends with Pullo, Mascius, and even Gaia, mowing down rival gang members.

I’m not even going to speculate any more. With Vorenus in Egypt and Pullo in Rome, who knows? I doubt Pullo is going to have much patience for being a gang Captain, bet you he leaves Mascius the Aventine and marches with Octavian (Ok, ok, I can’t resist speculating). Pullo yelling “thirteenth” while he mops up the opposition I consider to be something of a tip-off. Historically Octavian reformed the 13th Legion for Actium. Pullo marches with a reformed 13th under the command of Agrippa? Are they setting up a battlefield confrontation between Pullo and Vorenus? Will we really have an S&M scene with Octavian and Livia? Will Antony dress up in Egyptian eye make-up? Just how pissed is Atia going to get? Why is Timon going to Jerusalem? Who are they going to kill off next? So many questions, so few episodes.

As far as who gets killed off next, the historical characters, with the exceptions of Cleopatra and Antony of course, are pretty safe. The historical deaths were Agrippa 12 BCE, Octavia 11 BCE, Maecenas 8 BCE, Octavian 14 CE and Livia 29 CE. Atia, who historically was reported to be an exceptionally moral woman, would already be dead as she died in 43 BCE so I guess she’s vulnerable as is just about anyone on the domestic front. Why do I have this feeling that Pullo kills Vorenus or vice versa and why do I continue to be confused about Timon heading for Jerusalem? Maybe Timon is going to be the only domestic survivor.

I Want Me one of Them!

Damn, its 7 months until my birthday and 9 months until Christmas and the perfect gift, the PERFECT gift appears! I want me one of them Godless Dollars! Apparently several thousand of the new Washington Dollars from the Philadelphia mint were struck without the motto “In God we Trust.”

The idea of “edge inscripting” the coins, in other words printing along the edge rather than on the obverse or reverse of the coin, always struck me as a bit iffy. I guess the initial screw up sort of proves my concerns were well founded.

You have to love it. Initial rumors that the motto was going to be left off the coins got Christians all bent out of shape. The rumors emerged because the motto was indeed missing if you looked at only head and tail pictures. Then the mint explained about the edge inscription which sort of mollified Christians. Now the first run of coins has thousand upon thousands of reported errors where the motto has in fact been left off!

Like I said, you have to love it! What do you think? Maybe God is trying to tell us something? This is clearly the fault of the Bush administration and Anne Coulter. Quick, vote out the Republicans and sew Coulter’s mouth shut in order to get the country back into God’s good graces!

Bill Maher and James Cameron

On the last Bill Maher show the panel got into a discussion on the James Cameron film claiming that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth had been located. I’ve already addressed that notion as being totally unconvincing. What I want to talk about here are some of the comments made by Joe Scarborough.

Scarborough, as a devout Christian, naturally takes offense at anyone who questions his beliefs.

Scarborough - “But, you know, the thing is, whether you’re talking about ‘The DaVinci Code,’ or whether you’re talking about James Cameron, of whether you’re talking about the Judas Gospels, you have a lot of people that are making a lot of money right now, irritating Christians.”

Perhaps, but the question I have to ask is whether they are doing it for the purpose of “irritating Christians” or for some other motive that just happens to irritate Christians. The Judas Gospel, regardless of what you think about its validity, is clearly a document of great historical significance. In the case of Brown and “The DaVinci Code,” the man is simply trying to make a living. If these things happen to irritate Christians, so what? Are we to ignore historical or archeological discoveries and censor creative fiction because they happen to irritate Christians?

Speaking of The Judas Gospel, one of the most shocking things I ever read was a Christian clergyman’s reaction to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents, including The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel Of Philip. He expressed the opinion that you might as well toss them into the ocean because they’re non-canonical and therefore of no interest! Of course! Everything that was worth knowing was known at the completion of the Book of Revelations right?

Scarborough - “Talking about everything that you believed your entire life is false. That Jesus didn’t die and didn’t rise from the grave, and ascend into Heaven. So, you know again, it’s a big money maker, but it does offend a lot of Christians, because it goes against 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.”

So what? If it happens to be the facts, or even simply someone’s opinion, why is it forbidden to publish those facts or to express that opinion? This is the old pitch that one should be “respectful” of religion and not criticize religious beliefs. That’s a lot of nonsense. Christianity in general, and Evangelical Christianity in particular, has always claimed the prerogative to criticize and condemn anything that didn’t line up with its narrow view of the world or its slant on morality. Preachers from the evangelical pulpit have condemned abortion access, stem cell research, homosexuality, evolution, rock and roll, racial integration, hippies with long hair, Catcher in the Rye and even freaking Harry Potter.

Not content with mere verbal condemnation, Christian groups have demonstrated against gays carrying signs saying things like “AIDS cures homosexuality,” blocked access to abortion clinics and even murdered abortion doctors. You see, the problem is that people of religion confuse “knowledge” and “belief.” They think that their “belief” represents fact when it merely represents an opinion and, the last time I looked, in this country at least, one opinion was as good as another, and no opinion was immune from criticism.

Therefore, as I’ve said before, I utterly reject the notion that religious beliefs should be “respected” and be kept immune from criticism.

Scarborough - “…go to Amazon and look at the top 100 non-fiction books right now, you’ve got books out there that are called American Fascists: Why Evangelicals Are So Evil, The God Delusion.”

I’ve read Dawkins “The God Delusion” and I found it so-so. I thought the most interesting part was his theory that religion is a side effect of evolution. Dawkins speculates that the trait of accepting direction unquestioningly from parents and other authority figures during one's early years leads, indirectly, to a tendency to accept religion. This trait, while enhancing one’s survival chances by uncritically allowing the acceptance of advice like “don’t play near the crocodiles” and “don’t eat the berries with the green sap leaking out,” doesn’t allow us to differentiate between good advice and bad advice. So, paraphrasing Dawkins, while the advice about the crocodiles and berries is good, the advice to sacrifice a goat at the full moon so the gods continue to send the rains is merely a waste of goats.


Scarborough - “Let me believe what I want to believe. I’m not going to call you a fascist because you don’t believe that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven after three days. Don’t call me a fascist because I do.”

I don’t think Evangelical Christians are being called fascists because they believe Jesus ascended into Heaven, but rather because of their imperative to force their beliefs and their notions of morality on everyone else. I’m not certain I’ve ever used the term “fascist,” but I’ve certainly expressed similar sentiments. I have called Evangelical Christians the greatest danger to Western Democracy that exists today. Even the use of the title “Christ” is a minor attempt to enforce their beliefs on non-believers. You will notice that, unlike Scarborough, I never use “Christ” because simply to call Jesus of Nazareth, or more properly Yeshua bar Joseph, “the anointed one” is an acknowledgement that he was something above all other men.

Tell you what Joe, I’ll make you a deal, get Evangelical Christians to stop trying to get their creation myth taught as science in public classrooms, to stop trying to enforce their concept of morality with respect to abortion access and stem cell research on the rest of us, to stop trying to get their ten commandments displayed in public buildings using my tax dollars, to stop fighting against giving gay couples equal rights with heterosexual couples, to stop insisting that its good to give public tax dollars to faith based charities which invariably mix religious proselytizing with charity and to stop trying to get Harry Potter banned from the public library and I’ll stop calling them a danger to Western Democracy. As a matter of fact, that would just about eliminate any need for me to criticize them at all.

In other words, get them to recognize that this country was designed as, and is much better off as, a secular democracy than a Christian theocracy and I’ll stop caring about what they believe and how they choose to spend their Sunday mornings.

HBO’s Rome – Episode 19

This show is pretty good at surprising me. Either that or I’m just not all that good at predicting how plots will be developed.

On the historical front, Octavian and Antony divide the empire, with Antony taking the east and Octavian the west, but Octavian only accepts this arrangement after an agreement is put into place that all revenues are to be shared. This was a good move considering that most of the wealth of the empire came from the east. Lepidus, almost contemptuously, gets thrown Africa, minus Egypt of course which was the single richest province in the empire. As an interesting side note, in the first century CE there were two third class provinces in the empire. Judea, because it was such as dump as to be below the dignity of the Roman upper nobility to govern, and Egypt, because it was so rich that no one of the upper nobility could be trusted to govern it.

On the domestic front, the writers seem to be aiming for the elimination of any character than had any significant role in the show. Servilia and her loyal slave exited stage left by gutting themselves in front of Atia’s house. Talk about employee loyalty!

Memmio’s gigolo based plot has reached fruition and he now has Vorenus’s oldest daughter as a spy. The slave girl Gaia, and Pullo’s wife Eirene, are on the outs and Eirene insisted that Pullo beat Gaia for insubordination. Do I have to tell you what the “beating” evolves into? In the final scene Gaia is buying a concoction clearly intended to abort a pregnancy. The open question is whether the potion is for her or intended as poison for Eirene to terminate her pregnancy. My bet is it’s intended for Eirene because everybody on this show seems to be a total louse. The one admirable individual was Brutus and he died at Philippi in the last episode.

But the real surprises were the wedding bells, two sets of wedding bells as a matter of fact. In the first Atia, adding insult to injury, arranges a marriage between Octavia’s now destitute friend Jocasta and Caesar’s ex-slave Posca.

Then, the topper of them all, after a falling out over a bribe from King Herod to Antony that Antony, in violation of the agreement to share all revenues, tries to hide from Octavian, Atia suggests that a wedding between the two families would sound the right note of reconciliation. Of course what Atia means is her and Antony, but what Octavian and Antony negotiate is a marriage between Antony and Octavia.

Well, that’s certainly historically accurate. Antony and Octavia were married so apparently my thought that they were going to skip that whole bit as too complex, and substitute Atia for Octavia, was wrong. If you’re keeping score you’ll notice that I’m wrong an awful lot in my predictions on this show.

It’s the wedding that brings the most confusing of the side plots, that of Timon and his brother, to something of a crisis. Herod is one of the wedding guests and Timon’s brother insists that this would be a good opportunity to assassinate Herod. Timon tentatively agrees but then realizes that he has a wife and children to worry about, and the chances of surviving an assassination attempt are about zero, so he backs out. This leads to a scuffle over a knife and Timon’s brother is accidentally, and it appears fatally, stabbed. Was it that they had some time to kill or what? This subplot appears to have gone nowhere.

Things don’t look good on the domestic front. Vorenus, Pullo, Eirene and Vorenus’s offspring don’t appear to have much of a happy future ahead of them. On the historical front the rough outline is Antony leaves for Egypt and dumps both his wife Octavia and his mistress Atia for Cleopatra.

Poor Octavia hasn’t fared well in the show. From her portrayal you’d never know that this was a woman that was highly respected during her lifetime for her nobility, her humanity and for upholding the traditional Roman feminine virtues. This is no knock on Kerry Condon who plays Octavia, but rather a criticism of the character Kerry is asked to portray. Now we’ll have Octavia in a loveless marriage ensnared in the growing hostility between her brother and her husband. If the writers give her a chance, Octavia might be able to exhibit some of the those virtues noticeable absent up till now.

James Cameron and the Tomb of Jesus

James Cameron and the folks at the Discovery Channel have collaborated on a 90 minute documentary that claims that the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was located on the outskirts of Jerusalem in 1980.

In the tomb, supposedly, were the ossuaries of Jesus, his mother Mary, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Judah (His son Judah? What happened to Sarah?).

How is this possible you ask? Has there been a cover up? Have nefarious, sinister agents of the church been bribing, murdering and kidnapping poor archeologists for the past quarter century in order to keep this devastating secret, a secret which destroys the very fabric of Christianity, hidden?

Nah, the fact of the matter is Cameron is having a bad case of mental gymnastics.

The fact is that the tomb was thoroughly investigated when it was first discovered and the findings painstakingly documented by archeologists from Bar Ilan University. The fact that five of the ten ossuaries had names that could be linked to the New Testament was noticed but considered no more than a mild coincidence since these were VERY common names in Judea during the first century. Read Josephus if you want to get an idea how common the name Jesus was.

So, has new evidence come to light since then? Nope, none whatsoever, what Cameron and the Discovery Channel have done is hire a couple of statisticians who have calculated, on their trusty calculators I assume, that the probability that this is a family other than the family of Jesus of Nazareth ranges from between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000.

I don’t even know where to begin on this one. Even if I were to see, and accept the calculations, which I haven’t by the way, I don’t think it would result in more than a shrug on my part.

I’m one of the most anti-religious people on the planet. If I’m not impressed by this claim, who would be impressed by it? I get the feeling that this is a lot of nonsense. You’re going to need a lot more than magic with numbers to convince me of this one James.

A Man for All Seasons

I was sick most of the weekend with what I can only describe as a queasy stomach. I’m not sure if it was something I ate on Friday or a virus making itself at home. It was annoying, and left me with little ambition to do much, so I boob tubed a fair amount of the weekend away. The only saving grace was that the Turner Classic Movie (TCM) channel was nearing the climax of its 31 days of Oscar marathon and was airing consecutive Best Picture winners. That gave me the opportunity to catch Paul Schofield in “A Man for All Seasons” Saturday night.

The movie is a fictionalized account of the conflict between Sir Thomas More, lawyer, philosophy and theologian, and Henry VIII in regard to Henry’s desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.

The movie paints More as an altogether sympathetic character standing up for his principles while, as a loyal subject, trying to avoid an open confrontation with his king. In other words, to a large extent More is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t work, and eventually his enemies manage to get him convicted of treason through the use of perjured testimony.

Overall More is painted as an honest, courageous man of high principle and I remember taking that impression away from the movie as a conclusion the last time I’d seen it many years ago.

Well, either I’ve gotten smarter or more cynical because, after thinking about it a little bit, that’s not the conclusion I came away with this time. As I observed before, More is sort of trying to have his cake and eat it too. By not openly supporting Henry he’s making it clear that he disapproves, but by being silent he’s trying to avoid the consequences of that disapproval. I’m not sure I would call that courageous and highly principled. Is a man who tries to avoid the consequences of his convictions really acting in a courageous manner? Learn this young Padawan, if you decide to take a stand on principle, first be certain that you understand the potential consequences of that stand and, second, be certain that you are willing to accept those consequences.

I had to ask myself WHY does More refuse to accept the king’s marriage? Ostensibly it’s because the king’s actions deny the authority of the Pope which More, as a staunch Catholic, can’t condone. Typically one gets around this type of impasse by agreeing to disagree. I don’t agree with your actions but I recognize your right to decide what those actions should be. This would probably have been more than enough to satisfy Henry but More couldn’t bring himself to go even that far.

Why? Because he was a man of principle that wouldn’t give an inch on what he felt was wrong? Nope, I don’t think so. I think it was simply that More was more afraid of what would happen to him in what he was sure was the next life, than he was afraid of anything Henry could do to him in this life. More quotes Matthew 16:26, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul,” to the man whose perjury sends him to the headsman’s axe and I think this sort of sums up his whole attitude.

More is afraid to support the king because he thinks that’s going to send him to hell. He’s also afraid to openly criticize the king because he’s afraid that’s going to get him a very short haircut. Therefore he tries to tread a middle ground through the quagmire disapproving of the king’s actions in his own mind, in order to save his place in heaven, while never saying anything to anyone expressing his opinion in order to avoid facing the consequences here on earth. I’d call that more the actions of a slippery weasel than a man that should be held up as an icon of courage and principle.

But he was right to be appalled at Henry’s discarding Catherine for the cute little snippet Anne Boleyn wasn’t he? I mean, Henry must have been a real cad to discard a loving wife for a younger woman right?

WRONG. Henry had a real problem, and the decision to divorce Catherine probably had little or nothing to do with Anne. You see Henry needed a son to continue his dynasty and avoid a resumption of the civil strife that had plagued England for 30 years during the War of the Roses. It had only been about 40 years since the battle of Bosworth field had ended the dynastic warfare. With good reason the peers, and the king, of England had nightmares about a resumption of the chaos. The only surviving child of Henry and Catherine was Mary, born in 1516, but England was still considered far too contentious a throne for a woman, so Henry desperately needed a son and the aging Catherine was unlikely to provide one.

Balanced against the threat of the resumption of war, blood and destruction was the observance of an obscure piece of church dogma. About the only reason the Pope didn’t issue a divorce decree instantaneously was that he was the virtual prisoner of Charles I of Spain, who just happened to be Catherine’s nephew! In the final analysis there wasn’t a whole lot of foundation for a stand on principle.

In the movie More is played as a simple, quiet, sympathetic, even liberal man. In reality he was something of a religious nutcase. In his work Utopia, while advocating universal religious tolerance, More advocated the outlawing of atheism. As Chancellor of England, More had a nasty penchant for burning what he believed were heretics at the stake.

Bottom line, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Thomas More was a very admirable guy at least not by modern standards. He was probably a man of his time and class, arrogant, ignorant and intolerant. This sort of makes it quite appropriate that the Thomas More Center, a conservative law front that has defended such things as Intelligent Design in the biology classroom, is named after him.

Easter Candy and Pontius Pilate

Already they’re selling Easter candy in my local Eckerd. At the rate we’re going, they’ll be keeping all the holiday decorations and special items around all year long!

The Easter candy reminded me of an article I wrote a few years back that, it turns out, I’ve never posted on this blog, so I’ve decided to correct that omission.

On a number of occasions I’ve encountered arguments to the effect that the actions in the gospels attributed to Pontius Pilate during the trial of Jesus are contrary to what is known about Pilate’s personality and couldn’t possibly be accurate. Interestingly enough, I consider the described actions quite reasonable and even likely for the historical reasons outlined below. Now I’m not referring to specific details but rather to the three main points upon which all the gospels agree.

1. That Pilate was the judge at the trial.
2. That Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
3. That ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution.

What do we know about the man reputed to have given the orders for the crucifixion of Jesus? Surprisingly enough, the answer is quite a bit based upon the histories written at the time and some inferences derived from what is known about Roman Government, Roman Society and Judea in the early part of the first century.

Judea was a third class province, below the dignity of someone of Senatorial rank to govern. As a result it was assigned to a Prefect of Equestrian rank. The Equestrians were the lower nobility of Rome and a Prefect was a military rather than a civilian title. In contrast, the neighboring Province of Syria would have been governed by a Roman of Consular rank, the highest crust of the Roman upper nobility.

Pilate probably had some military experience to his credit and in fact was very likely more of a soldier than a politician. His new command appears to have consisted of 5 auxiliary infantry cohorts plus a small wing of auxiliary cavalry. Since the main mission of this force would have been to keep the local brigands under control, it’s also likely that each infantry cohort had a cavalry detachment. So the total force would have been about 3,500 men, some 2,500 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. These were 2nd rate Romans troops and small in number. They could handle bandits and minor disturbances, but in any major insurrection Pilate would have been in serious trouble.

While technically independent, Pilate would normally have been under the guidance, and protection, of the Consular Legate of Syria who had 4 Roman Legions at his disposal plus auxiliaries for something like 30,000 troops. In the event of real trouble, Pilate would have had to appeal to the Syrian Legions for help. He just didn’t have the manpower, especially considering even the small force he had was split between Jerusalem, Caesarea and patrolling the countryside.

Normally he would have been under the Syrian Governor’s guidance and protection, but during the first 6 years of Pilate’s command there was no Syrian governor in Antioch. Tiberius seems to have been experimenting with a sort of remote rule and the governor of Syria was in Rome! Since it’s unlikely that anyone on the spot in Syria had the authority to move the Syrian Legions to Judea without directions from Rome, Pilate must have been feeling a tad exposed.

In addition to his inability to rely on any immediate help from Syria in the event of an emergency, Pilate’s rule is marked by another unique circumstance. While Gratus, his predecessor as Prefect, replaced the Temple High Priest four times in his eleven year rule, Pilate stuck with the man he found in the office when he arrived, Caiaphus. One can only speculate why, but one can be pretty sure it was related to some type of quid pro quo agreement. Pilate may not have been a true politician, but he wasn’t stupid either and as an officer would have recognized an ally when he saw one.

That Pilate was more of a soldier than a politician is demonstrated by his first mistake early in his term as Prefect. Given the small force at his disposal, his first concern would have been the strategic placement of the few troops he had. That led him to redeploy a cohort from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Unfortunately he chose one whose standards carried an image of the emperor. Despite Josephus’ claims that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert Jewish practices and law, it appears to most historians more like a beginner’s mistake. Either Pilate was unaware of Jewish practices or, as a hard nosed military type, found it hard to believe the standards were really going to cause a problem. He was wrong, they did, and the next thing he knew several thousand Jews had appeared in Caesarea demanding that the standards be removed. Pilate had the good sense to back down and exchange cohorts; his small force would have been quickly overwhelmed in a general uprising which is what this appeared to be on the verge of becoming.

This brings us to Good Friday and the trial of Jesus. Let’s recap for a second and keep a few things in mind.

1. Pilate was most likely more of a soldier than a politician.
2. Pilate had a relatively small force of about 3,500 men.
3. Pilate could expect no immediate help from the Syrian Legions in the case of real trouble.
4. Pilate probably had a mutually beneficial quid pro quo arrangement with Caiaphas.

Pilate was the Judge at Jesus's Trial
At first blush it appears a little strange that the Roman governor would preside at the trial of a Jewish peasant. It appears strange because the word “governor” implies to us a high ranking political authority. But Pilate was a Prefect, a military officer and at the time, technically, the commanding officer in Jerusalem.

At any other time except Passover, the decision of what to do about Jesus would probably have fallen to the commander of the Jerusalem garrison who was more than likely an ex-senior centurion that had managed to be promoted to command of the auxiliary cohort. But at this time Pilate, as the senior officer on the spot, was the commander of the garrison so it’s very likely that he would in fact have to be the man to pass judgment. Who else would there be? That’s how military command works

Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
Pilate probably traveled from Caesarea with a cohort as escort. Added to the cohort permanently stationed at Jerusalem, that would have given him about 1,200 troops and he was surrounded by 50,000 or more pilgrims, all of them armed! I say they were armed because given the problems with bandits in Judea, travelers were allowed to travel armed and invariably did. Even the Essenes, religious ascetics, carried weapons when they traveled. The crowd would have had daggers, swords and clubs certainly, perhaps even bows.

No amount of training could make up for that kind of numerical disparity. Should things erupt, Pilate was in a hopeless military position and, as a soldier, he would know it. Given the situation, and his past experiences with the Jews, of course he was hesitant; he would have been a complete idiot not to be hesitant!

Ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution
Obviously, since Jesus was in fact executed, but why? The trial occurred at least 5 years into Pilate's rule and he had been working with Caiaphas since the beginning. He would know by now when he could rely on the High Priest and when he couldn't.

What Caiaphas would have realized was that this was the perfect opportunity to head off a future problem. The crowd had dispersed, the pilgrims were focusing on the holiday preparations, and if they moved quickly, it would all be over before the population realized what was happening.

Its unlikely Pilate viewed Jesus as much of a threat; he would be more concerned about the 50,000 armed pilgrims! But for Caiaphas, Jesus's antics in the Temple would have been a direct threat, not only to his authority, but to a very lucrative source of cash. Based on their quid pro quo relationship and Caiaphas's superior understanding of the Jews, it's not to difficult to believe that the High Priest would have convinced Pilate that executing this troublemaker was the smart, as well as the safer, decision.


Now, one other point needs to be addressed, which is exactly how did folks find out what took place? The trial may not have been terribly public as that would have focused the pilgrims on what was occurring (exactly the opposite of what Caiaphas and Pilate would want!), but it probably wasn't kept all that secretive either. There would have been servants, most of them Jews, as well as soldiers around, able to eavesdrop on what was going on. They would have talked and it's not surprising that the gist of the proceeding could be learned by anyone that was interested. Later the gospel writers, with expansion and embellishments undoubtedly, recorded what had occurred.

It's not terribly important that the gospels may add imaginative details. What is important is that the core of the events, Pilate was the judge; Pilate was initially hesitant to act, Pilate ultimately agreed to the execution, appear quite reasonable under the circumstances and might very well be accurate!

Surprise, surprise! Yet again the gospels indicate that they might very well be far more accurate as historical documents than some scholars and historians are willing to give them credit for.

I don't have a problem with the Bible as a historical document nor do I have a problem with it as a source of wisdom. It's the idea that it is the infallible source of law and morality that I reject.

What Should Influence our Laws More?

How does one relate to a group of people whose philosophy runs counter to the principles of the country?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time I looked, the government of the United States was to be driven by the will of the people. This is the fundamental principle of Western Democracy, the will of the people, as long as it doesn’t stomp on the rights of the minority, trumps all.

How then do we account for a segment of the population that disagrees with this principle? In a recent Pew Forum poll the question was asked “Which should be the more important influence on the laws of the United States? Should it be the Bible or should it be the will of the American people, even when it conflicts with the Bible?”

The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that the twin principles of government by the people and religious freedom dictate that the answer to this question must be “the will of the American people” and they answered this way by a margin of 63%-32%.

Are you concerned that 32% of the country thinks the Bible should trump the will of the people especially considering that the majority of these morons probably don’t even know what the Bible says? It certainly bothers me. Do you suppose any demographic group would be ignorant enough that a majority voted that the Bible should have more influence? It would be a real shock wouldn’t it? Well, guess what, the group known as Evangelical Christians voted that way by an almost reverse margin of 60%-34%. Get it, 60% of Evangelical Christians think that the Bible should have more influence than the will of the American People when it comes to the laws of these United States.

This is why I consider Evangelical Christianity the single biggest danger to Western Democracy that exists today. They are like a fifth column intent on destroying the principles upon which the country is founded and replacing them with their own distorted views. And I’m supposed to respect this opinion and not identify it for the stupidity that it is simply because it has a religious foundation? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one!

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t mean I have to afford that opinion any degree of approval. Sometimes someone’s opinion stinks like last week’s garbage and this is one of those cases.

Blacks, by a margin of 50% to 48%, believe the Bible should have a greater influence while Whites, by a margin of 65%-35%, understand that it should be the will of the people.

Half the Blacks in this country believe that a book that accepts slavery and advocates a philosophy of the exclusion of those who are different, which is the foundation of racism, should have more influence on our laws than the will of the people. I find that really sad. I’d like to ask that 50% whether we should have all just accepted Genesis 9:27 as a justification for segregation and left Jim Crow in place.

Then again, education, as usual, looks like a possible cure here as those with a college degree understood it should be the will of the people by a margin of 75%-20%, those with some college by a margin of 66%-30% and, those with at least a High School diploma, by a margin of 58%-38%. Only those that didn’t even make it through High School split almost evenly, but still gave a small edge to the will of the people, by a margin 0f 47%-46%.

Those who take the Bible literally, 65%, and those who attend church services at least weekly, 52%, were more likely to say the Bible should have more influence. One encouraging point was that younger folks, by a margin of 74%-22%, understood that it should be the will of the people.

Like I said before, it’s quite likely that many of these idiots that are saying the Bible should have more influence on our laws don’t even know what the Bible says. Oh, I’m sure they’ve read selected “feel good” stories or had them read to them from the pulpit. There is no lack of admirable wisdom in the Bible. But I’ll bet you most of them would be stunned to learn of the myriad “hard passages” also contained in the Bible.

I think it was Isaac Asimov that said the Bible was the greatest argument for atheism he had ever encountered. I’ll make the observation that no intelligent person, that reads the Bible objectively, could conceivably come to the conclusion that it’s the word of God.

HBO’s Rome – Episode 18

The Battle of Philippi, as imagined by HBO’s Rome, is a bloody affair moving in slow motion. The bloodiness is probably accurate although I suspect the movements of those involved were quite a bit more frantic.

Cassius and Brutus both die fighting rather than through the suicide route, although I guess you could call Brutus’s actions suicidal. Brutus is noble to the end. He refuses to retreat when surprised by the combined forces of Octavian and Antony. He tells his remaining troops to save themselves, requesting one officer to “tell my mother something suitable” before wading into the advancing enemy legionaries.

The battle follows a housecleaning back in Rome by Octavian and Antony to eliminate enemies and accumulate wealth. Octavian comes up with the idea but Antony carries it to a level that appears to bother Octavian and clearly upsets Agrippa. Atia even convinces Antony to do away with the father of Octavia’s friend Jocasta whom Atia considers a bad influence. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

It’s Vorenus and the collegium gangs that get the job of eliminating those on “the list.” As a reward the gangs are entitled to all the loot they can carry. Vorenus suggests they use the windfall to feed the people. This idea is received with less than overwhelming enthusiasm.

Included on the list is Cicero whom Pullo gets the job of eliminating and then nailing Cicero’s hands, as Antony promised would happen, to the senate door. On the domestic front, there seem be a number of plots being hatched. Memmio, a rival gang captain, appears to be working on something involving Vorenus’s older daughter and a gigolo type character. Gaia, a female hard ass slave, looks like she’s constantly scheming. After getting blown off by Vorenus after a night of sex, Gaia seems to be making plays for Pullo, to the distress of Eirene, and Mascius, the ex-soldier that is Vorenus’s number 3 man. I originally thought she might become the Niobi replacement but perhaps I was wrong. Lyde is trying to convince Vorenus that his older daughter should be allowed to marry but Vorenus, hard nose that he is, is convinced that no man worth having would accept a wife that had been forced into prostitution. Eirene is pregnant, Agrippa got it together with Octavia, Atia has figured out that Agrippa and Octavia got it together and Atia has mentioned the M word for the second time to Antony. Oh yeah, and Timon appears to now see eye to eye with his brother and now they both sound like siccari including beating on the elders considering bribing the Romans on behalf of Herod.

A lot of stuff happens in an hour on this show. So where is it all going? With Philippi dispensed with by episode 18, what’s going to happen in the last 6 shows? Clearly it’s going to be Antony and Cleopatra getting it together, Atia getting royally pissed over that, the battle of Actium and the asp. One wonders how they’re going to handle the little problem of Caesarion. Historically Octavian had the boy eliminated. In the show however the boy is possibly the son of Pullo and I wonder if that's going to have any impact.

On the home front, I have no idea. I don’t know whether we’re heading for a happily ever after kind of ending or a total catastrophe. At the moment, a total catastrophe seems more likely. And where are they going with this Timon and his brother subplot?

Like last year the show is following a very rough outline of history while playing fast and loose with the details. This allows you to have a handle on the general direction the show is going to take without knowing either how it’s going to get there or what’s going to happen when it arrives. That keeps you guessing which is what I find enjoyable about watching the show. We shall see, what we shall see I suppose.

Death Penalty Update

It’s been a while since I’ve done a general death penalty post. Well, 2007 is off and running. There have been five executions already, one in Oklahoma and four, yeah, that’s right, FOUR, in Texas. Do you suppose they drink different water in Texas or what?

Rick Halperin, at his Death Penalty News & Updates site at SMU, reports that another 21 executions, including 9 in Texas, were scheduled around the country between now and mid-August. I say “were” because five of those were in Tennessee and Governor Phil Bredesen has now placed all executions there on hold because of problems with the state’s “Manual for Execution” which, among other idiocies, contained instructions that the condemned prisoner’s head be shaved. Tennessee uses lethal injection. Where were they thinking of inserting the needle if they have to shave the head?

Around the country, two states, Illinois and New Jersey, have formal moratoriums on executions in place. One state, New York, has had its death penalty declared unconstitutional since 2004 and appears to be in no rush to reinstate it. Ten states, including California, Florida and Ohio, have executions effectively halted due to legal issues with lethal injection procedures. Twelve states are considering either abolishing capital punishment or declaring a formal moratorium. The states most likely to abolish the death penalty in the near future are New Jersey, where a special committee has recommended abolition by an overwhelming 12-1 margin, Nebraska, whose judiciary committee unanimously approved moving an abolition measure to the senate floor and Colorado, whose judiciary committee passed an abolition resolution by a vote of 7-4.

On a sour note, five states, including Texas of course, are considering expanding the application of the death penalty! Four of these states, Texas, Missouri, Virginia and Georgia are in the south. The fifth is Utah which I’m not 100% certain is a part of the United States anyway. Actually, I suspect Utah is really a myth. I mean, has anyone actually ever met someone from Utah?

HBO’s Rome

I’m having trouble keeping up. Two episodes have gone by since my initial update and things are progressing.

Atia avoided a gruesome death thanks to a slave’s sneaking a taste from her dinner. This led to a little torture session for the poisoner, curtesy of Timon, followed by the abduction and beating of Servilia. This was more than Timon could handle however and he stomped out, after releasing Servilia, shouting “I’m not an animal!” Appears that Timon has found religion, or perhaps refound it, as last we saw him he was praying alongside his supposedly rehabilitated brother. I still think the brother sounds like a Zealot though.

Pullo ran into the grown up Octavian while searching for Vorenus. It appears Octavian still looks upon Pullo and, by extension, Vorenus favorably, although Vorenus’s loyalty to Antony could be a problem down the line.

For the moment however that’s all sort of irrelevant. Cicero has recalled Brutus and Cassius to Rome at the head of a large enough Army that Octavian and Antony have buried the hatchet in the face of the common threat.

Vorenus and Pullo managed to locate Vorenus’s children and rescue them from slavery with only one death, that of the overseer. That was a little disappointing as I was expecting a bloodbath. Unfortunately the two daughters are holding a grudge. With some justification they blame Vorenus for their time in slavery and for the death of Niobi. They’ve already tried to run away once and only returned in response to Lyde’s urging.

In the meantime, Vorenus has re-assumed gang command in the Aventine and negotiated a peace with the two gangs his group had been in conflict with. Getting demoted back to number 3 didn’t thrill the ex-soldier that had been in charge during the absence of Vorenus and Pullo.

So, it’s Octavian and Antony in an alliance of convenience in order to deal with Brutus and Cassius. Timon has found religion and Vorenus has conflicts brewing both within his criminal gang and within his family. One wonders how they’re going to work this all out? Oh yeah, Agrippa has the hots for Octavia.

Brutus and Cassius are marching toward Rome from Asia. Octavian and Antony need to meet up with them in Macedonia for the battle of Philippi so the two need to get moving. I’m wondering if Vorenus and Pullo will remain behind or march with the army? I can envision a developing plot between the disgruntled #3 in command and the disgruntled older daughter while daddy is away.

The battle of Philippi was rather a long drawn out affair, far too drawn out for it to be accurately represented on a TV series. Look for a fast march to Macedonia by Octavian and Antony followed by a quick decisive engagement. Historically both Brutus and Cassius committed suicide. One wonders how HBO will portray their deaths?

Near the end of last season, Vorenus’s life was going well while Pullo descended into the depths of depression and depravity, but that all came apart in the last episode. Early this season it was Pullo’s life on the upswing, with his marriage to Eriane, and Vorenus’s life in ruins. Now things appear to be stabilizing but it’s the eye of the storm. All around them are conflicts brewing. I wonder how it’s all going to end? With the emergence of Timon as a man of God one wonders if somehow monotheism in general, and Christianity in particular, will end up with a role to play. There are still 40 years to go until the birth of Jesus, but a little thing like historical accuracy has never bothered TV before.

So What About Barack Obama?

Beats the hell out of me. I don’t know enough about the man or what he stands for and I’m sorry, but simply being black, articulate, handsome and charismatic isn’t enough.

Ok, granted he’s a lot smarter than George Bush Jr., would probably not get caught molesting interns like Bill Clinton, clearly has a superior intellect when compared to George Bush Sr., would be capable of making weightier decisions, beyond simply what jelly bean to eat next, than Ronald Reagan and wouldn’t get pushed around by some Ayatollah like Jimmy Carter.

In other words he couldn’t possibly be any worse then the lightweights we’ve suffered through over the past 25 years or so. That being the case, what the hell, go Barack go!

Religious Protests over a Ramp?

The religious mind never ceases to amaze me. In the latest round of absurdities the AP has reported on the protest by hundreds of Muslims over the Israeli government’s plans to replace a ramp leading up to the Noble Sanctuary, the third most holy site in Islam.

Here are some of the quotes reported by the AP.

Raed Salah, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, said “The aggression happening now is a tragedy, a crime,” and then went on to accuse Israel of declaring “a regional religious war.”

They’re fixing a freaking ramp that they believe has become unsafe. Maybe they should wait until the damn thing collapses and kills a dozen or so people? What would you accuse them of then, genocide? Talk about exaggeration! The Israeli’s swear the work isn’t going to damage the Muslim Holy site. Personally I think they should bull doze the whole thing along with all the other mosques, churches and synagogues. Then they could use the land for something useful.

U.N. ambassadors from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference called on the U.N. Security Council “to take immediate and urgent action in order to bring an end to Israeli intransigence and violations against the blessed Al Aqsa mosque.”

The U.N. Security Council? You brought this before the U.N. Security Council? Can somebody please explain to me again how the religious are rational? They’re all nuts if you ask me and Muslims must be the craziest of the lot.

UNESCO issued a statement calling on Israel “to suspend any action that could endanger the spirit of mutual respect until such time as the will to dialogue prevails once again.”

What mutual respect? Again I ask what kind of reaction could we expect if the damn ramp collapsed and killed 20 or 30 Muslims?

I find this so ridiculous as to be beyond comprehension.

Super Bowl XLI

Boy what a soggy mess. The only thing I could think about the whole game was “thank goodness it’s not me sitting there getting drenched!”

Actually, that’s not really true; I was also groaning that the missed extra point in the 1st quarter pretty much blew any chance I had for collecting cash from the pool I invested $10 in since I had 4-4.

Beyond that, I thought the commercials were way below par for a Super Bowl and I was terribly disappointed that Prince didn’t slide on the wet stage and land on his butt during his water soaked performance at half-time.

Such are the thoughts that go through one’s mind when one couldn’t care less who wins the damn game. Given the weather, the game was more than a little sloppy with loads of turnovers, most of which seemed to be the courtesy of the Bears overmatched quarterback Rex Grossman. Talk about having a bad day.

So Payton gets his first ring and, hopefully, this will establish such a level of sibling rivalry that Eli will drag the Giants, probably kicking and screaming, to a date with destiny of their own. Or at least one can dream as the glory of 1990 is beginning to grow dim.

Final score, Colts 29 and Bears 17.

The Story of the Grainfield

Mark tells a story about Jesus and the disciples crossing a grainfield one Sabbath.

Mark 2:23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

Mark 2:25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

The story is repeated in both Matthew 12 and Luke 6. Matthew omits the name of the priest but adds some expansion including these words to what Jesus says:

Matthew 12:6 “I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.”

Luke’s version is almost identical to Mark’s except that he also, strangely enough, omits the name of the priest. Why do Matthew and Luke omit the name of the priest?

Well, if you go back to the original story, which comes from 1 Samuel 21, there’s a possible reason. The name of the priest that David gets the bread from is Ahimelech and not Abiathar. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and escaped the revenge that Saul takes upon Ahimelech and his family for helping David.

Now Samuel doesn’t call Ahimelech the high priest, but Ahimelech does appear to be the head priest at a place called Nod. So what’s the deal here? Did Jesus make a mistake or did Mark make a mistake? Either way it sort of makes you wonder. If Jesus made the mistake, is it likely that God, even in the guise of a man, would misquote his own scripture? If Mark made the mistake, well, so much for the inerrancy of the text.

But here’s something else, all three gospels say that David also gave some of the bread to his companions. But David didn’t have any companions. David is fleeing from Saul by himself. Ahimelech even asks him “Why are you alone?” David lies to the priest saying that he is on a confidential mission for the king which “No one is to know anything about” and that he ordered his men “to meet me at a certain place.” In reality David did no such thing, since he wasn’t on a mission from the king but was fleeing for his life, he had no troops escorting him. Others don’t join David until 1 Samuel 22. When he is talking Ahimelech into giving him the consecrated bread, he’s by himself.

So the whole story is a totally incorrect retelling of the story from 1 Samuel 21. So who blew it? Did Jesus have a memory lapse or did Mark? Matthew and Luke did what damage control they could by omitting the priest’s name. They couldn’t omit the statements about David’s companions without making the whole story completely irrelevant to something being done by the apostles.

If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus was wrong or was making things up, in other words, lying. If Jesus actually told the story correctly, then all three gospels are inaccurate in their description of the event.

I’m sure there exists an apologetic answer to this although I’ve never come across it. One obvious point is that the story of David is incidental to the points Jesus is making. First, he is pointing out the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Second, he is making the point that the Pharisee’s interpretation of the law is not necessarily the right interpretation of the law.

Regardless of how often someone tries to convince me that Jesus was an ignorant peasant with limited intellectual skills, the argument doesn’t stick. He certainly didn’t have a cosmopolitan outlook on life and his education was probably limited by the fact that he was living in a backwater of the empire. He may have been ignorant in the sense that he didn’t have the benefit of a classical or liberal education, and he probably had no conception of the world beyond the limited confines of Galilee and Judea, but his mental faculties strike me as having been top notch.

Yes, I’m convinced that Jesus was a pretty smart cookie. Maybe someone should start a religion based upon his teachings? The main point of the story that, despite the unmitigated arrogance of the Pharisees, their interpretation is not necessarily the right interpretation, should be taken to heart by the modern day Pharisees, those who call themselves “Evangelical Christians.”

Friends of God

“Friends of God” is the name of an HBO documentary about Evangelical Christianity in America. I knew if I watched it, that the show was going to upset me, I just didn’t realize by how much.

They had a sequence showing Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis pitching his garbage to a meeting room full of preschoolers. Ham used ever dirty pitch trick you could imagine from half truths to innuendo to outright lying. If that wasn’t infuriating enough, then the HBO interviewer talked to the kids asking them about their beliefs. What a demonstration of a well brain washed group.

Worse were the conversations with slightly older, and I would assume veterans of Ham’s presentation, seeing how well the message has stuck, and how nailed shut the minds have become. I loved the one kid who explained that people accept evolution because they haven’t been given all the evidence (!?) and how the universities are biased in favor of evolution! How about biased in favor of the evidence?

Allow me to provide an example of the crap spewed by one of Ham's presenters. The question being addressed was why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible which, if they had been contemporary with ancient man, they should have been. To explain this omission the presenter asked the children rhetorically if "automobile" was in the bible or "computer?" Of course not he answered, because these are what he called "new words" just like dinosaur was a "new word." Of course he neglected to mention that the only reason dinosaur is a "new word" is folks back then didn't need a word to describe what they had no knowledge of. If there had been dinosaurs wandering around, they would have had a word to describe them, just like they had words to describe lions and tigers and bears. It would not have been the precise word "dinosaur," but it would have been some word. Perhaps "bigthingthatknocksdownhouses" or something like that.

And we let people who bring their own kids to be brainwashed vote? No wonder this goddamn country is going to the dogs. The show got me so furious I started yelling at my wife who disagrees with my position that all religions are cults.

Bottom line, people like this are dangerous. They’re not funny and amusing but harmless yokels; they are dangerous and need to be fought, with words if sufficient, and with bullets if necessary.

Over the last few months I had sort of mellowed in my attitude toward religion. Well that show ended that. Now I’m all stirred up all over again.

Rome is Back

The first three episodes of the second, and final, season of the HBO series Rome have been aired and I’m finding the series interesting but decidedly mediocre. I don’t even bother to watch the shows when they premier, I catch them a day or two later on HBO On Demand.

I guess they’ve decided to skip the whole Antony marries Octavia bit as too complicated and leave Antony hooked up with Atia; unless of course that poisoner Servilia hired to get Atia manages to succeed. We’ll find out next week. In the meantime Antony has left Rome for Gaul after Cicero done him wrong in the senate, Octavian has hooked up with school chum Agrippa in Campania, where they have apparently raised a nice little army, and Brutus and Cassius are looking for financial support in the far reaches of the empire. Oh yeah, and Cleopatra has turned up in Rome. I’ve also learned that the role of Octavian is to be recast bringing in an older actor to play the grown up Octavian.

On the domestic front, Orestes Fulman has, apparently, kidnapped and sold Vorenus’s daughters, and Niobe’s sister Lyde, into slavery. Voranus and Pullo, after depopulating Fulman’s gang of thugs, cut off the man’s head but were first convinced that the girls, and Niobe’s son, were dead. Then, at the insistence of Antony, Vorenus sort of took over the Aventine as a kind of deranged godfather type. Unfortunately, at the moment, Vorenus is in Gaul with Antony and his criminal empire appears to be coming apart. Vorenus and Pullo have also had a falling out and Pullo was wandering with Eirene when Lyde, who escaped from the slavers, shows up. At the end of episode three Pullo is riding hard, I assume to let Vorenus know that his daughters are alive. Another side plot seems to be developing with Timon. His brother, who sounds like a 1st century BCE version of a Zealot, has shown up and is acting in a decidedly suspicious manner. Whew.

Now I’m up to date and we shall see what develops.

Hillary Throws her Hat into the Ring

To no ones real surprise Hillary Clinton announced that she was, officially, seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination. Let the games begin! It’s too early for me to back any particular candidate since the guy I wanted, Russ Feingold, has decided not to run. We shall see what we shall see as things develop.

The NFL Playoffs

My Giants lost to the Eagles, but played pretty well, the Cinderella Saints lost to Chicago, the Patriots upset San Diego but then got bounced by the Colts. To make a long story short it’s the Bears and Colts. By not posting every week I managed to avoid embarrassing myself again this year but would you believe I managed to call both championship games correctly?

Two Black head coaches will square off against each other in the Super Bowl. The NFL has certainly come a long way hasn’t it? Who’s going to win? I have to go with Eli’s big brother Payton to finally get the ring. But I'm still going to be rooting for the Bears!

Welcome Back

Well I finally broke free for a bit so I can update my poor neglected blog. Isn’t it terrible how work tends to get in the way of doing stuff you want to do? I missed putting in my two cents on a whole bunch of stuff so all I can do now is try and get up to date.

New Jersey Commission Recommends Abolition of the Death Penalty

The New Jersey Commission studying the death penalty has recommended abolition by a margin of 12-1. The sole dissenter was the author of the current death penalty statute passed in 1982.

This is big. I mean this is really big. Governor Corzine is not a fan of the death penalty and public opinion in the Garden State has been swinging toward life without parole for several years now but nevertheless, a discrete repeal of the death penalty in New Jersey could influence New York. The Empire State has never bothered to repair its statute declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court and has been in a sort of limbo with respect to the death penalty. Given all the current problems with the death penalty this could start a trend with states like Michigan and California following suit.

Such a trend would signal a surge into the 21st century. Hey, who knows, you get rid of the death penalty and maybe scientific literacy, and the acceptance of Evolution, and Gay Rights might not be all that far behind. Except in the South of course where they’re working hard on marching back to the 16th century.

Giants at Redskins

You’ve got to be kidding? As much as I love them I’ll be the first to admit that the Giants have stunk up the league over the last eight weeks. Only a heroic performance by Tiki Barber, running for an incredible 230 yards, and an absolutely miserable Redskins team, has allowed Coughlin to manage an anemic 8-8 record by thumping Washington 34-28. Yet they still managed to get to football’s promised land? They squeaked into the playoffs as the sixth seed? That’s unbelievable. They’re going to get killed in Philadelphia on Sunday. It would have been better if Tiki’s last game had been his career performance at Washington.

So now the play-off teams are set. Way back in early November, at the halfway mark of the season, I made my predictions. Let’s see if I did any better than my play-off predictions last year.

In the AFC, I said New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis and San Diego would win the divisions and I was right on all four. Granted it didn’t take a genius to figure this out, but it still makes me 4-0. Unfortunately I said Cincinnati and Jacksonville would get the Wild Cards and it turned out to be the Jets and Kansas City. That makes me 0-2 there for a final record of 4-2 for the AFC.

In the NFC, I said Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta and Seattle would win the divisions, but it turned out that my confidence in Atlanta and skepticism about New Orleans were both misplaced and the Saints captured the NFC South. That makes me 3-1 there. I said New Orleans and Dallas would get the Wild Cards and it turned out to be Dallas and the Giants. That makes me 1-1 there for a final record of 4-2 for the NFC and 8-4 overall.

Even though I managed to identify 9 of the 12 play-off teams, I think I’ll hold on to my day job.