According to the AP, the American Psychological Association (APA) has established a six member task force to review its current policy on counseling gays. The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative, or conversion, therapy which is aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation.
Conservative religious groups around the country are up in arms over what they view as a “pre-ordained” conclusion because the task force is packed with anti-reparative therapy individuals.
The Conservative position is that if someone with a homosexual orientation, because of religious or other issues, wants to try and change their sexual orientation, then psychologists and psychiatrists should respect those wishes and attempt to help with reparative therapy. The gay and lesbian rights position is that such therapy is not only ineffective but psychologically harmful especially when applied to minors at the insistence of their parents.
The director of the APA's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, insisted the panel would base its findings on scientific research, not ideology. He defended the decision to reject certain conservative applicants to the task force by saying "We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality — they don't fit into our world view."
Gee, that sounds a little strong! I suspect what the director means is that one can’t get around the problem, that anyone with a religious conviction that homosexuality is a choice and sinful, has almost got to ignore or rationalize any scientific data which contradicts that belief. I would hope a similar concern would be recognized in having a gay member on the panel.
But from the article it sounds like even folks that hold non-religion based positions that reparative therapy, when the patient wants it, should be available have been excluded. In other words, you’re damn straight the panel is packed to come to the conclusion that reparative therapy is harmful.
This is a tricky one. If reparative therapy is potentially harmful then aren’t doctors, since they should follow Galen’s advice to “do no harm”, constrained from offering it? How do you insure that members of any review panel, for any situation, rely on the facts and not preconceived notions? The answer is that you can’t. The most you can do is try to avoid including the extremists and demand that the rationale for the conclusions be documented and recommendations justified.
To be honest with you, I don’t know what the data indicates. I would suspect that, if sexual orientation is either genetic or hormonal in nature as the evidence seems to say, then reparative therapy would be, in most cases, pretty much an effort in futility. If you are told that one can change if one really wants to, and oh by the way, one’s “immortal soul” is in jeopardy of spending eternity in a lake of fire if you don’t change, and you can’t, what would that do to your self-esteem? I suspect the old self-esteem would take quite a shellacking, leading to depression, which in turn could lead to contemplations of suicide. Precisely what opponents of reparative therapy claim is the problem.
On the other side is the argument that one should respect an individual’s values and provide the therapy if the patient wants it. I have two questions for supporters of this position. First, how come the same logic doesn’t apply to abortion access? Second, it’s one thing for an adult to choose potentially harmful therapy, but what about a minor? Do parents have the right to make that decision for their children? I would say the answer to that question should be no.
I suspect the APA task force will recommend against reparative therapy. Let’s hope that they do so based upon sound science and not political principle.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Pope Benedict Reasserts Catholic Primacy
According to MSNBC News Services, Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. He approved a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Apparently, the Orthodox churches defect is based upon their failure to recognize the primacy of the pope, but other than that they’re ok because they have Apostolic Succession (they can trace their origins back to one of the original apostles). But the other Christian denominations weren’t true churches because they had no Apostolic Succession.
This is the second role back from the Second Vatican Council; the first was the re-institution of the Latin Mass.
Duh, no real surprise here. Secretly, no matter how much they smile and talk about ecumenical co-operation, all Christian sects are convinced that everyone else is going to Hell. Some Fundamentalist sects are even looking forward to viewing the torments of the damned as a sort of heavenly entertainment.
I'm sure that you'll be relieved to know that the Pope's assertion (or reassertion) makes absolutely no difference to anything that matters.
Theology is such a waste of the gift of intelligence.
Apparently, the Orthodox churches defect is based upon their failure to recognize the primacy of the pope, but other than that they’re ok because they have Apostolic Succession (they can trace their origins back to one of the original apostles). But the other Christian denominations weren’t true churches because they had no Apostolic Succession.
This is the second role back from the Second Vatican Council; the first was the re-institution of the Latin Mass.
Duh, no real surprise here. Secretly, no matter how much they smile and talk about ecumenical co-operation, all Christian sects are convinced that everyone else is going to Hell. Some Fundamentalist sects are even looking forward to viewing the torments of the damned as a sort of heavenly entertainment.
I'm sure that you'll be relieved to know that the Pope's assertion (or reassertion) makes absolutely no difference to anything that matters.
Theology is such a waste of the gift of intelligence.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business
A while back I read an excerpt from Michael E. Berumen's book, "Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business," about his thoughts on the Religious Mind. Berumen makes the following observations about this scariest of topics.
“It seems to me that people of a religious bent are especially apt to confuse their beliefs with understanding or knowledge. Things are thought to be true simply because they believe or desire them to be true…”
To be fair, we all do this don’t we? The difference is when people do this on non-religious subjects, it’s considered correct to criticize them for it, but when it’s applied to religion, we’re supposed to admire the individual’s “faith.”
“To my mind, there are several principal features of the religious temperament that stand out more than others, namely, fear of the unknown and a need for certainty…”
We’re all afraid of the unknown. It’s a natural human emotion and generally a pretty darn good instinct that can keep us out of harm's way. The problem is that our only real advantages are our intelligence and our ability to reason. When we allow our fears to cripple those advantages, we’re asking for trouble.
“A hallmark of the religious mind is what appears to be an overwhelming need to have others believe the same things… By their very existence, nonbelievers, deviants, and apostates shake a believer's confidence in his view of the world, which he finds wholly intolerable.”
Again, this is normal human nature, but the mark of a civilized society is the ability to accept differences and plurality as a sign of strength rather than as a threat. This is the fundamental conflict at the core of a believer who lives in a western democratic society.
His religion is telling him one thing and his secular society is telling him something totally different. Often, with little or no justification, the two get merged in the mind in order to resolve the conflict. A perfect example of this is when Martin Luther King defined a “just law” in terms of “the law of God” in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. But what is this “law of God” that King spoke of? Inevitably it is the moral code established by men and then justified by attributing it to God.
The fiction of plurality and tolerance is maintained only as long as the non-believers “respect” religion. The Islamic Fundamentalist’s uproar over the Danish Cartoons and the Christian Fundamentalist’s ongoing assault upon evolution illustrates the potential reaction when non-believers are, according to the believer, “disrespectful.” How far behind then is interpreting non-belief itself as “disrespectful” or “blasphemous?”
“They, of course, confuse piety with morality…”
Yes they do, and I’ll go further than that, they define piety as one aspect of morality.
Yet the definition of piety depends upon the nature of one’s god(s) doesn’t it? The Romans not only equated piety to morality but to good citizenship as well. The gods blessed the state and all good Romans were expected to honor the gods in return. A failure to do so was considered treason. The Romans had no problem with you honoring your own god(s) as well, as long as you respected the gods of the state. These are the “certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire” that King, and other Christians, believe early Christians were justified in disobeying. Why? Well, simply because of a clash in the definition of “piety.”
Religion, and especially Christianity, is loud about their having the moral high ground. If you challenge them on this they will inevitably point to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Yet there are a dozen interpretations of the sermon, none of which propose that you should follow it literally regardless of the consequences. In other words, Jesus’ teachings are followed selectively. Who does the selecting? Why men do of course. You’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed.
“It seems to me that people of a religious bent are especially apt to confuse their beliefs with understanding or knowledge. Things are thought to be true simply because they believe or desire them to be true…”
To be fair, we all do this don’t we? The difference is when people do this on non-religious subjects, it’s considered correct to criticize them for it, but when it’s applied to religion, we’re supposed to admire the individual’s “faith.”
“To my mind, there are several principal features of the religious temperament that stand out more than others, namely, fear of the unknown and a need for certainty…”
We’re all afraid of the unknown. It’s a natural human emotion and generally a pretty darn good instinct that can keep us out of harm's way. The problem is that our only real advantages are our intelligence and our ability to reason. When we allow our fears to cripple those advantages, we’re asking for trouble.
“A hallmark of the religious mind is what appears to be an overwhelming need to have others believe the same things… By their very existence, nonbelievers, deviants, and apostates shake a believer's confidence in his view of the world, which he finds wholly intolerable.”
Again, this is normal human nature, but the mark of a civilized society is the ability to accept differences and plurality as a sign of strength rather than as a threat. This is the fundamental conflict at the core of a believer who lives in a western democratic society.
His religion is telling him one thing and his secular society is telling him something totally different. Often, with little or no justification, the two get merged in the mind in order to resolve the conflict. A perfect example of this is when Martin Luther King defined a “just law” in terms of “the law of God” in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. But what is this “law of God” that King spoke of? Inevitably it is the moral code established by men and then justified by attributing it to God.
The fiction of plurality and tolerance is maintained only as long as the non-believers “respect” religion. The Islamic Fundamentalist’s uproar over the Danish Cartoons and the Christian Fundamentalist’s ongoing assault upon evolution illustrates the potential reaction when non-believers are, according to the believer, “disrespectful.” How far behind then is interpreting non-belief itself as “disrespectful” or “blasphemous?”
“They, of course, confuse piety with morality…”
Yes they do, and I’ll go further than that, they define piety as one aspect of morality.
Yet the definition of piety depends upon the nature of one’s god(s) doesn’t it? The Romans not only equated piety to morality but to good citizenship as well. The gods blessed the state and all good Romans were expected to honor the gods in return. A failure to do so was considered treason. The Romans had no problem with you honoring your own god(s) as well, as long as you respected the gods of the state. These are the “certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire” that King, and other Christians, believe early Christians were justified in disobeying. Why? Well, simply because of a clash in the definition of “piety.”
Religion, and especially Christianity, is loud about their having the moral high ground. If you challenge them on this they will inevitably point to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Yet there are a dozen interpretations of the sermon, none of which propose that you should follow it literally regardless of the consequences. In other words, Jesus’ teachings are followed selectively. Who does the selecting? Why men do of course. You’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed.
Friday, July 06, 2007
No Jail for Scooter Libby
I have to put my two cents in about this one. However, surprisingly, I don’t have a real issue with Bush commuting Libby’s sentence to simply two years probation.
Why you ask? Simply because Libby was the fall guy and, while I don’t consider that admirable, he isn’t the real villain in the piece and therefore I don’t consider using him as a whipping boy necessary.
Just get us to January of 2009 and, hopefully, we can begin to erase the nightmare of this administration. I did think it was enlightening however that the only defense these bozos could come up with in response to criticism over the commutation was a whine to the effect, well, Clinton did it too. You know you’re in serious trouble when the President of the United States can’t do better than tu quoque in justifying his actions.
Why you ask? Simply because Libby was the fall guy and, while I don’t consider that admirable, he isn’t the real villain in the piece and therefore I don’t consider using him as a whipping boy necessary.
Just get us to January of 2009 and, hopefully, we can begin to erase the nightmare of this administration. I did think it was enlightening however that the only defense these bozos could come up with in response to criticism over the commutation was a whine to the effect, well, Clinton did it too. You know you’re in serious trouble when the President of the United States can’t do better than tu quoque in justifying his actions.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Bong Hits 4 Jesus?
There were two interesting Supreme Courts decisions today, both were 5-4 decisions, and both clearly indicate that the court will lean right when it’s close. No real surprise there I guess.
The first was a decision in Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation in which the FfRF was attempting to challenge Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives program. The issue was whether or not someone can challenge an executive branch program they believe violates the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause simply because they are a taxpayer.
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 Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation is whether simply being a taxpayer is enough to confer the legal standing to challenge aspects of Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives program.
This is not a simple question because it’s plain that there are far too many people in this country with too much time, too much money, some very strange ideas and a willingness to sue at the drop of a hat. The fear is that if you extend the exception to the executive branch, it could open the doors for a host of ridiculous lawsuits.
As a matter of fact a number of Amicus Briefs, including one from 11 states, supporting Hein proposed the overturning of Flast as a doctrinal aberration.
Anyway, to make a long story less long, the court held, 5-4, that the FfRF had no standing to sue but they left Flast in place. In dissent Justice Souter questioned the rationale that sees a difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch when it comes to a question of the 1st Amendment.
Clearly Souter has a point. If the Bush Administration can allocate general funds to support religious institutions, what is to prevent a situation where congress allocates “general funds” and the president allocates it to the establishment of religion? Who now has the standing to sue? As a matter of fact, in the case the FfRF "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative. However Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority said "Of course, none of these things has happened."
No Sammy, they haven’t happened, but given the direction the religious right would like to go, they may if you keep slamming the door on possible avenues for a redress of grievances. Keep this up and I might start a petition to repeal your New Jersey roots.
So what does this have to do with “Bong Hits 4 Jesus?” Well, nothing, except that a decision in a free speech case came out the same day. This was one of those silly cases that somehow take on monumental proportions.
In all started one fine day in 2002. An Alaska high school student displayed a 14-foot-long banner, which read simply “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” at a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch make its way through Juneau en route to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
The student said he was asserting his right to free speech, although later he admitted that he was trying to get the principal’s goat. The principal interpreted the banner as advocating drug use, which the student denied, and suspended the student.
The court sided with the school principal saying that the school had the right to curtail student speech it saw as undermining its effort to educate about the harms associated with drug use.
Drug use? Apparently a “bong” is a slang term for a water pipe which is commonly used for smoking hash or grass. I didn’t know that, did you? Even with that information it’s a bit hard to see what the hell “Bong hits 4 Jesus” means. This was one of the points made by the defense, the message was nonsensical.
Yeah right, then why not say “Lettuce Hits 4 Jesus?” Clearly the guy knew what a bong was, suspected how the principal would react and did it anyway. I think the court got this one right. There is a limit.
The first was a decision in Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation in which the FfRF was attempting to challenge Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives program. The issue was whether or not someone can challenge an executive branch program they believe violates the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause simply because they are a taxpayer.
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 Hein vs. Freedom from Religion Foundation is whether simply being a taxpayer is enough to confer the legal standing to challenge aspects of Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives program.
This is not a simple question because it’s plain that there are far too many people in this country with too much time, too much money, some very strange ideas and a willingness to sue at the drop of a hat. The fear is that if you extend the exception to the executive branch, it could open the doors for a host of ridiculous lawsuits.
As a matter of fact a number of Amicus Briefs, including one from 11 states, supporting Hein proposed the overturning of Flast as a doctrinal aberration.
Anyway, to make a long story less long, the court held, 5-4, that the FfRF had no standing to sue but they left Flast in place. In dissent Justice Souter questioned the rationale that sees a difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch when it comes to a question of the 1st Amendment.
Clearly Souter has a point. If the Bush Administration can allocate general funds to support religious institutions, what is to prevent a situation where congress allocates “general funds” and the president allocates it to the establishment of religion? Who now has the standing to sue? As a matter of fact, in the case the FfRF "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative. However Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority said "Of course, none of these things has happened."
No Sammy, they haven’t happened, but given the direction the religious right would like to go, they may if you keep slamming the door on possible avenues for a redress of grievances. Keep this up and I might start a petition to repeal your New Jersey roots.
So what does this have to do with “Bong Hits 4 Jesus?” Well, nothing, except that a decision in a free speech case came out the same day. This was one of those silly cases that somehow take on monumental proportions.
In all started one fine day in 2002. An Alaska high school student displayed a 14-foot-long banner, which read simply “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” at a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch make its way through Juneau en route to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
The student said he was asserting his right to free speech, although later he admitted that he was trying to get the principal’s goat. The principal interpreted the banner as advocating drug use, which the student denied, and suspended the student.
The court sided with the school principal saying that the school had the right to curtail student speech it saw as undermining its effort to educate about the harms associated with drug use.
Drug use? Apparently a “bong” is a slang term for a water pipe which is commonly used for smoking hash or grass. I didn’t know that, did you? Even with that information it’s a bit hard to see what the hell “Bong hits 4 Jesus” means. This was one of the points made by the defense, the message was nonsensical.
Yeah right, then why not say “Lettuce Hits 4 Jesus?” Clearly the guy knew what a bong was, suspected how the principal would react and did it anyway. I think the court got this one right. There is a limit.
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Presidential Candidates
Over a year ago I took a look at five potential presidential nominees both Republican and Democrat. Of the five, only two seem to be still in contention while a host of new possibilities have appeared.
Most of the new entries I think it’s safe to ignore, but this time around I’m going to talk about six.
Mitt Romney – Rank = 6
We disagree on just about everything it appears or, at least, we disagree about his current updated positions. I can’t shake the feeling that this guy is saying whatever it takes to get votes at the moment. He’s shuffled to the right fighting for the nomination and who knows? Maybe he would shuffle left for the election? I can’t have confidence in someone who plays that kind of game.
Now let’s talk about his Mormonism. Mormons believe things that appear to be demonstrably false. Regardless of how implausible you find Christianity in general you have to concede that, as unlikely as it seems, it might be true. Accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture, despite contradictory archeological and genetic evidence, strikes me as lousy decision making. Do we really want another idiot with lousy decision making skills in the White House?
John McCain – Rank = 5
McCain was my #2 man last time around but since then John has slid to the dark side. I understand that you have to look like a right wing fruitcake in order to get the support of the religious right which, for the moment, wields tremendous influence in the Republican Party, but McCain is starting to sound like a convert. I can no longer see myself supporting McCain.
On the personal side, I think John’s just too old, ten years ago maybe, but not today. I’d like to see a younger man in the oval office.
Barack Obama – Rank = 4
I just don’t think he has the skills and experience. The last time I talked about Obama I said he couldn’t possible be any worse than some past presidents and was, justly, chastised for that. We need to go for the best that’s available and not settle for someone that’s simply better than past mistakes. Hell, finding someone better than Bush would be easy. About 90% of the population would be better than Bush but most of them shouldn’t be president either.
Clearly you can’t talk about Obama without addressing the question of race. Suffice to say that the question of race means absolutely nothing to me. I would have voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat and still would. Someday I expect to vote for Barack Obama for president as well, but not in 2008.
Rudy Giulianni – Rank = 3
I never had the impression that Giulianni was all that great a mayor. He just happened to be the mayor on 911 which catapulted him into a fairly favorable national spotlight. Hell, they cheered the Giants in Kansas City the following Sunday too. While I don’t feel uncomfortable with his position on most issues, I have to wonder how effective a president, who is so out of tune with his own party, could possibly be?
On the personal side, anyone that’s been divorced three times leaves me a little cold. If I’ve had to suffer and stay married to my first wife, everyone should suffer and stay married to their first wife. Nah, only kidding, I love my wife. But again, one has to wonder about the decision making talents of a man who married the wrong woman three times?
Hillary Clinton – Rank #2
She’s growing on me a little. Sort of like a creeping fungus. Maybe I’ve been contaminated by the many people who really hate this lady but I just don’t feel comfortable with her. I’m really afraid she would be more of a polarizing entity than a healing entity and, after Bush, this country needs some healing. I’m afraid Hillary would just make the schism worse. I also don’t think she can get elected
This is sort of unfortunate because, on the issues, we line up pretty much 100%. I might even forgive her for supporting the start of the war in Iraq, but only if she admits she made a mistake.
John Edwards – Rank #1
Edwards has admitted that voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake. Perhaps that’s the main reason I prefer him over Hillary. I also believe that he’s viewed as more moderate and, perhaps, just perhaps, he can begin the process of putting the country back together again.
You will notice I’m ignoring the whole $400 haircut thing. That was a really stupid thing to do but at least he appears to have chosen the right woman which strikes me as much more important. I think having a woman with the courage of Elizabeth Edwards keeping John in line would work out just fine.
Most of the new entries I think it’s safe to ignore, but this time around I’m going to talk about six.
Mitt Romney – Rank = 6
We disagree on just about everything it appears or, at least, we disagree about his current updated positions. I can’t shake the feeling that this guy is saying whatever it takes to get votes at the moment. He’s shuffled to the right fighting for the nomination and who knows? Maybe he would shuffle left for the election? I can’t have confidence in someone who plays that kind of game.
Now let’s talk about his Mormonism. Mormons believe things that appear to be demonstrably false. Regardless of how implausible you find Christianity in general you have to concede that, as unlikely as it seems, it might be true. Accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture, despite contradictory archeological and genetic evidence, strikes me as lousy decision making. Do we really want another idiot with lousy decision making skills in the White House?
John McCain – Rank = 5
McCain was my #2 man last time around but since then John has slid to the dark side. I understand that you have to look like a right wing fruitcake in order to get the support of the religious right which, for the moment, wields tremendous influence in the Republican Party, but McCain is starting to sound like a convert. I can no longer see myself supporting McCain.
On the personal side, I think John’s just too old, ten years ago maybe, but not today. I’d like to see a younger man in the oval office.
Barack Obama – Rank = 4
I just don’t think he has the skills and experience. The last time I talked about Obama I said he couldn’t possible be any worse than some past presidents and was, justly, chastised for that. We need to go for the best that’s available and not settle for someone that’s simply better than past mistakes. Hell, finding someone better than Bush would be easy. About 90% of the population would be better than Bush but most of them shouldn’t be president either.
Clearly you can’t talk about Obama without addressing the question of race. Suffice to say that the question of race means absolutely nothing to me. I would have voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat and still would. Someday I expect to vote for Barack Obama for president as well, but not in 2008.
Rudy Giulianni – Rank = 3
I never had the impression that Giulianni was all that great a mayor. He just happened to be the mayor on 911 which catapulted him into a fairly favorable national spotlight. Hell, they cheered the Giants in Kansas City the following Sunday too. While I don’t feel uncomfortable with his position on most issues, I have to wonder how effective a president, who is so out of tune with his own party, could possibly be?
On the personal side, anyone that’s been divorced three times leaves me a little cold. If I’ve had to suffer and stay married to my first wife, everyone should suffer and stay married to their first wife. Nah, only kidding, I love my wife. But again, one has to wonder about the decision making talents of a man who married the wrong woman three times?
Hillary Clinton – Rank #2
She’s growing on me a little. Sort of like a creeping fungus. Maybe I’ve been contaminated by the many people who really hate this lady but I just don’t feel comfortable with her. I’m really afraid she would be more of a polarizing entity than a healing entity and, after Bush, this country needs some healing. I’m afraid Hillary would just make the schism worse. I also don’t think she can get elected
This is sort of unfortunate because, on the issues, we line up pretty much 100%. I might even forgive her for supporting the start of the war in Iraq, but only if she admits she made a mistake.
John Edwards – Rank #1
Edwards has admitted that voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake. Perhaps that’s the main reason I prefer him over Hillary. I also believe that he’s viewed as more moderate and, perhaps, just perhaps, he can begin the process of putting the country back together again.
You will notice I’m ignoring the whole $400 haircut thing. That was a really stupid thing to do but at least he appears to have chosen the right woman which strikes me as much more important. I think having a woman with the courage of Elizabeth Edwards keeping John in line would work out just fine.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Death Penalty Update
Another execution based upon voodoo science has, at least for the moment, been avoided in Texas. The Medical Examiner who testified against Cathy Henderson, the woman accused of murdering a baby she was babysitting for, has recanted his testimony that the injuries were inconsistent with a fall. Henderson has always maintained that the death was an accident.
Apparently “new evidence” has convinced the doctor that he might have been wrong about what he was certain enough about 12 years ago to be the crucial witness leading to Henderson’s conviction. Exactly how she was considered dangerous enough under the Texas aggregating factors to get the death penalty is still a mystery to me.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed her execution and remanded the case to the trial court for a more careful examination of the new scientific evidence. Amazing, there are signs of intelligent life in the Texas justice system.
Elsewhere, the Tennessee legislature has overwhelmingly approved a study of the death penalty in that state based upon a negative report from the American Bar Association and New Jersey is moving at a snail’s pace toward abolition. Motions have been introduced but there doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency in the Garden State. Perhaps that’s because New Jersey has never executed anyone under the current statute and is in no danger of performing an execution anytime soon.
There have been 22 executions so far this year, 15 of which have been in Texas. This is about the same as last year. Also similar to last year, there are a lot of executions scheduled during the summer. There are 28 executions scheduled between now and the end of September, including 12 in Texas. That would put 2007 well ahead of the execution rates in 2005 and 2006.
So things aren’t really getting much better despite a new DPIC poll that shows that 58% of Americans feel that it’s time for a death penalty moratorium. Perhaps that’s because, according to the same poll, 40% feel they would be excluded from serving on a death penalty jury and an incredible 87% believe that an innocent person has been executed in recent years.
In the meantime, in the Fantasyland called Washington D.C., the Supreme Court, in a recent decision upholding the decision of a trial judge to exclude a juror that simply had doubts about the death penalty, appears to have widened the range of jurors that won’t be allowed to serve on capital cases which would further reduce the chance of broad spectrum juries and fair trials when folks are on trial for their life.
And I thought things couldn’t get any worse. Let that be a lesson to me, things can always get worse.
Apparently “new evidence” has convinced the doctor that he might have been wrong about what he was certain enough about 12 years ago to be the crucial witness leading to Henderson’s conviction. Exactly how she was considered dangerous enough under the Texas aggregating factors to get the death penalty is still a mystery to me.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed her execution and remanded the case to the trial court for a more careful examination of the new scientific evidence. Amazing, there are signs of intelligent life in the Texas justice system.
Elsewhere, the Tennessee legislature has overwhelmingly approved a study of the death penalty in that state based upon a negative report from the American Bar Association and New Jersey is moving at a snail’s pace toward abolition. Motions have been introduced but there doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency in the Garden State. Perhaps that’s because New Jersey has never executed anyone under the current statute and is in no danger of performing an execution anytime soon.
There have been 22 executions so far this year, 15 of which have been in Texas. This is about the same as last year. Also similar to last year, there are a lot of executions scheduled during the summer. There are 28 executions scheduled between now and the end of September, including 12 in Texas. That would put 2007 well ahead of the execution rates in 2005 and 2006.
So things aren’t really getting much better despite a new DPIC poll that shows that 58% of Americans feel that it’s time for a death penalty moratorium. Perhaps that’s because, according to the same poll, 40% feel they would be excluded from serving on a death penalty jury and an incredible 87% believe that an innocent person has been executed in recent years.
In the meantime, in the Fantasyland called Washington D.C., the Supreme Court, in a recent decision upholding the decision of a trial judge to exclude a juror that simply had doubts about the death penalty, appears to have widened the range of jurors that won’t be allowed to serve on capital cases which would further reduce the chance of broad spectrum juries and fair trials when folks are on trial for their life.
And I thought things couldn’t get any worse. Let that be a lesson to me, things can always get worse.
Monday, June 11, 2007
A String of Bad Luck
Sometimes I wonder if there’s anything in this idea of Yin and Yang. That somehow, the good, and the bad, need to balance.
Usually I think about this during a string of petty annoyances. Then I think about people who have really terrible things happen in their lives and I tell myself to stop bitching about trivia.
But, if you want a chuckle, let me tell you how things have been going for me recently. I was leaving the gym and decided to fill up my gas tank for the morrow’s commute to work. Just as I was signing the Visa receipt, one of the gas station guys came out and lowered the price from $2.91 a gallon to $2.89 a gallon.
Usually I think about this during a string of petty annoyances. Then I think about people who have really terrible things happen in their lives and I tell myself to stop bitching about trivia.
But, if you want a chuckle, let me tell you how things have been going for me recently. I was leaving the gym and decided to fill up my gas tank for the morrow’s commute to work. Just as I was signing the Visa receipt, one of the gas station guys came out and lowered the price from $2.91 a gallon to $2.89 a gallon.
The End of the Sopranos
Badda-bing, badda-boom, the HBO hit series “The Sopranos” went out last night with a whimper. No blood, no gore and no shock, just a sudden darkening of the screen that left millions thinking that their televisions had malfunctioned.
Nope, the TVs were fine, it was the show’s writers, directors and producers that had malfunctioned. They should have asked me. I could have told them how to take out the show with a bang while still leaving all their options intact.
You pan away from the family sitting in the restaurant to some innocent scene of commonplace objects. Then, suddenly, there’s a commotion, followed by yelling voices that can’t be understood, then, several gunshots and finally, a single scream. All the while the camera stays focused on the placid commonplace objects. After a few seconds of bedlam, the screen fades to black and everything goes silent.
Nope, the TVs were fine, it was the show’s writers, directors and producers that had malfunctioned. They should have asked me. I could have told them how to take out the show with a bang while still leaving all their options intact.
You pan away from the family sitting in the restaurant to some innocent scene of commonplace objects. Then, suddenly, there’s a commotion, followed by yelling voices that can’t be understood, then, several gunshots and finally, a single scream. All the while the camera stays focused on the placid commonplace objects. After a few seconds of bedlam, the screen fades to black and everything goes silent.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Religion or Bad Science?
Over the Memorial Day weekend Answers in Genesis (AiG) opened its $27 million dollar Creationism Museum in Kentucky.
There were a number of groups that organized demonstrations in order to prove that people weren’t going to let the distortion of truth go unprotested. Virtually all of these groups fell over themselves denying that it was religion that were opposing. It wasn’t religion, it was “bad science.”
There is a difference between “bad science” and dishonesty. There’s certainly enough “bad science” out there. Jumping to conclusions on too little evidence is “bad science.” Failing to investigate alternative hypotheses adequately is “bad science.” Failure to fully investigate whether a correlation really demonstrates a cause and effect relationship is “bad science.”
Drawing the curve before you plot the points isn’t “bad science,” its dishonesty. And, essentially, that’s what religion does. First it establishes “the truth” and then it goes looking for so-called evidence, or twisted hypotheses, that support the predetermined conclusion. Where I come from that’s called lying.
When are we going to stop putting religion up on a pedestal and keep it immune from the criticism of reason? Guys, it wasn’t “bad science” you were protesting, it was the dogma inherent in religion. How about we be honest about it?
There were a number of groups that organized demonstrations in order to prove that people weren’t going to let the distortion of truth go unprotested. Virtually all of these groups fell over themselves denying that it was religion that were opposing. It wasn’t religion, it was “bad science.”
There is a difference between “bad science” and dishonesty. There’s certainly enough “bad science” out there. Jumping to conclusions on too little evidence is “bad science.” Failing to investigate alternative hypotheses adequately is “bad science.” Failure to fully investigate whether a correlation really demonstrates a cause and effect relationship is “bad science.”
Drawing the curve before you plot the points isn’t “bad science,” its dishonesty. And, essentially, that’s what religion does. First it establishes “the truth” and then it goes looking for so-called evidence, or twisted hypotheses, that support the predetermined conclusion. Where I come from that’s called lying.
When are we going to stop putting religion up on a pedestal and keep it immune from the criticism of reason? Guys, it wasn’t “bad science” you were protesting, it was the dogma inherent in religion. How about we be honest about it?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Graduations
Two of my three daughters graduated this May. One got her Bachelors from Hofstra and the other her J.D. from Seton Hall Law. It’s funny how my expenses don’t seem to have gone down any though. As a matter of fact, they may have gone up, as I had to stake the job hunting Hofstra grad to a car.
That’s not what I want to talk about though. I want to talk about the graduations themselves.
The Hofstra commencement was held in the football stadium. Luckily the rain stopped before things got underway and we ended up with a fairly pleasant sunny day. The speaker was Eileen Futter, President of the Museum of Natural History, but Senator Charles Schumer of New York also showed to speak although he wasn’t on the program. I guess you don’t turn down a U.S. Senator.
Schumer’s speech was a well worn entertaining piece of fluff that he was apparently giving at commencements around the state. I suspect this because a couple in back of us was predicting what he would say based upon his appearance the day before at a SUNY school commencement. Futter was more to the point, and focused upon changes the graduates could expect to see over their lifetime, such as the changes the current generation has seen. The graduates pretty much ignored most of what was occurring on the podium.
After the speeches we got some 2,000 graduate names run off as each kid got the opportunity to walk across the platform. The only organization was in the school of graduation which didn’t do me much good as my daughter graduated from the school of Liberal Arts (duh!). Hofstra did have an interesting process however, since the kids were coming up in totally random order, each handed the announcer his or her name on a card, which was read off as the graduate moved on to shake hands with the President of the College, and Dean of the School from which they graduated. The poor college president looked like his arm was going to fall off by the time he was done. The kids got nothing as their final grades weren’t even in so it’s possible that some of them didn’t actually graduate.
The Seton Hall Law graduation was held in the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) in Newark. The featured dignitary and speaker was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito but the Archbishop of Newark was there to read the invocation and there was also a 3rd U.S. Circuit judge to introduce Alito.
I expected stuffy from Seton Hall, especially with a statue of Mother Seton keeping an eye on the whole process, but instead got some rock music as well as a student band, also doing rock, as part of the ceremony. While it sort of seemed a little out of phase, given all the caps and gowns, it certainly made the whole thing a bit more lively.
Alito’s commencement speech, I thought, was pretty good. He started with a joke about finally making it to the stage of the NJPAC and thus providing his mother some return on ten years of piano lessons. He followed that up with an observation that only a lawyer could make such a statement as, while it was completely accurate, it was also totally misleading.
The main part of his speech revolved around how one could apply the lessons of the U.S. Constitution to ones personal life and career. While it’s dangerous to read much into a commencement speech, Alito did focus on two interesting points. The first was the principle of Stare Decisis which he defined as the necessity to recognize, and respect, previous rulings even if one doesn’t agree with them personally. Something that might fit this category for Alito would be Roe v. Wade. Maybe Sam can’t be relied upon to overturn a woman’s right to choose?
The other focus was on Freedom of Religion. He expressed support for the Constitution’s prohibition against a religious qualification for public office, (no big surprise there), and support for the separation of church and state where he specifically called out the choice NOT to have a religion as equivalent to Freedom of Religion. I felt a lot better about the future of the Republic after listening to Alito’s speech.
While Schumer left right after speaking and avoided the seemingly endless parade of graduates, Alito was there for the entire exercise. He marched in with the faculty at the beginning and marched out with them at the end.
The role call at Seton Hall was in alphabetical order and each graduate got his actual diploma on the stage. During the role call of graduates, Alito took a photo, along with the law school dean, with each and every graduate. I have to admit that impressed me. Here’s a man who has lots of very important things to do, and would probably like to spend any free time he can scrounge up with his family or doing things for himself, yet he stayed through the whole deal.
A while back I started to ask where have all the heroes gone? Where are the John Kennedy’s, the Robert Kennedy’s, the Martin Luther Kings, the Muhammed Ali’s and the Malcom X’s of this generation? Perhaps I was seeing one of them at the NJPAC the other day.
That’s not what I want to talk about though. I want to talk about the graduations themselves.
The Hofstra commencement was held in the football stadium. Luckily the rain stopped before things got underway and we ended up with a fairly pleasant sunny day. The speaker was Eileen Futter, President of the Museum of Natural History, but Senator Charles Schumer of New York also showed to speak although he wasn’t on the program. I guess you don’t turn down a U.S. Senator.
Schumer’s speech was a well worn entertaining piece of fluff that he was apparently giving at commencements around the state. I suspect this because a couple in back of us was predicting what he would say based upon his appearance the day before at a SUNY school commencement. Futter was more to the point, and focused upon changes the graduates could expect to see over their lifetime, such as the changes the current generation has seen. The graduates pretty much ignored most of what was occurring on the podium.
After the speeches we got some 2,000 graduate names run off as each kid got the opportunity to walk across the platform. The only organization was in the school of graduation which didn’t do me much good as my daughter graduated from the school of Liberal Arts (duh!). Hofstra did have an interesting process however, since the kids were coming up in totally random order, each handed the announcer his or her name on a card, which was read off as the graduate moved on to shake hands with the President of the College, and Dean of the School from which they graduated. The poor college president looked like his arm was going to fall off by the time he was done. The kids got nothing as their final grades weren’t even in so it’s possible that some of them didn’t actually graduate.
The Seton Hall Law graduation was held in the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) in Newark. The featured dignitary and speaker was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito but the Archbishop of Newark was there to read the invocation and there was also a 3rd U.S. Circuit judge to introduce Alito.
I expected stuffy from Seton Hall, especially with a statue of Mother Seton keeping an eye on the whole process, but instead got some rock music as well as a student band, also doing rock, as part of the ceremony. While it sort of seemed a little out of phase, given all the caps and gowns, it certainly made the whole thing a bit more lively.
Alito’s commencement speech, I thought, was pretty good. He started with a joke about finally making it to the stage of the NJPAC and thus providing his mother some return on ten years of piano lessons. He followed that up with an observation that only a lawyer could make such a statement as, while it was completely accurate, it was also totally misleading.
The main part of his speech revolved around how one could apply the lessons of the U.S. Constitution to ones personal life and career. While it’s dangerous to read much into a commencement speech, Alito did focus on two interesting points. The first was the principle of Stare Decisis which he defined as the necessity to recognize, and respect, previous rulings even if one doesn’t agree with them personally. Something that might fit this category for Alito would be Roe v. Wade. Maybe Sam can’t be relied upon to overturn a woman’s right to choose?
The other focus was on Freedom of Religion. He expressed support for the Constitution’s prohibition against a religious qualification for public office, (no big surprise there), and support for the separation of church and state where he specifically called out the choice NOT to have a religion as equivalent to Freedom of Religion. I felt a lot better about the future of the Republic after listening to Alito’s speech.
While Schumer left right after speaking and avoided the seemingly endless parade of graduates, Alito was there for the entire exercise. He marched in with the faculty at the beginning and marched out with them at the end.
The role call at Seton Hall was in alphabetical order and each graduate got his actual diploma on the stage. During the role call of graduates, Alito took a photo, along with the law school dean, with each and every graduate. I have to admit that impressed me. Here’s a man who has lots of very important things to do, and would probably like to spend any free time he can scrounge up with his family or doing things for himself, yet he stayed through the whole deal.
A while back I started to ask where have all the heroes gone? Where are the John Kennedy’s, the Robert Kennedy’s, the Martin Luther Kings, the Muhammed Ali’s and the Malcom X’s of this generation? Perhaps I was seeing one of them at the NJPAC the other day.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Why the Scandal at Justice is a Scandal
I keep hearing Republicans moaning that the uproar over the firings of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration is just a trumped up political witch hunt because Presidents, including Bill Clinton, have routinely replaced all 93 attorneys without so much as a whimper from anyone.
This sound bite is typical of why I think the GOP has lost its sense of integrity. I know, and they know, that the move by the Bush Administration was NOT typical. Wholesale replacements of U.S. Attorneys occur upon a change of administration and NOT during an administration.
Even that wouldn’t have been such a big deal, (I mean, let’s face it, sometimes some people just need to be shown the door), if it weren’t for the apparent motive behind the firings. In other words, the issue isn’t that they were fired, the issue is WHY they were fired and, as a corollary, why some of the folks chosen to replace them were chosen.
The criteria appear to have been loyalty to the Bush Administration and willingness to use the office to benefit the Republican Party rather than competence and the ability to perform the duties of the office. Yes the U.S. Attorneys are technically political appointees, but they are also expected to be competent prosecutors and individuals that, once appointed, will operate in an independent, bipartisan manner and according to the law. Their oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the United States and not one of loyalty to a particular administration, political party or individual.
Allow me to make a very strong statement. There is no ethical difference between the Bush Administration’s attempt to use the power of the U.S. Attorney’s office to influence the outcome of the political process and Adolf Hitler’s use of his Brown Shirts to intimidate voters and influence the outcome of the political process. One action is subtle and hidden and the other crass and open, but ethically they are both a betrayal of the electorate and the democratic process.
Talk about hitting a new low. I never thought I would be seriously comparing the actions of an American President to the actions of Adolf Hitler.
I had to shake my head at the pundits on Fox News laughing at Jimmy Carter calling the Bush Administration the worst in history and implying that he shouldn’t talk as his four years were an unmitigated disaster of their own. But there is a difference. There is a very BIG difference. Carter’s Administration may have been one of the most incompetent administrations in history, but no one could ever accuse Carter of lying or willfully trying to subvert the political process. In other words, no one ever questioned Carter’s integrity or his motives. With the Bush Administration on the other hand, it’s not just simple incompetence. It’s lying, underhandedness and deceit as well as incompetence!
They have repeatedly lied to the American people for political advantage. They have started a war for no apparent reason other than Georgie wanted to play War President. They have twisted and subverted the civil rights of Americans and others and they have consciously sacrificed the democratic principles upon which this country was founded for political gain. And on top of all that, they’re incompetent as hell! Just ask the folks that had the misfortune to be in the path of Katrina.
And that, young padawan, is WHY this is the worst administration in history.
This sound bite is typical of why I think the GOP has lost its sense of integrity. I know, and they know, that the move by the Bush Administration was NOT typical. Wholesale replacements of U.S. Attorneys occur upon a change of administration and NOT during an administration.
Even that wouldn’t have been such a big deal, (I mean, let’s face it, sometimes some people just need to be shown the door), if it weren’t for the apparent motive behind the firings. In other words, the issue isn’t that they were fired, the issue is WHY they were fired and, as a corollary, why some of the folks chosen to replace them were chosen.
The criteria appear to have been loyalty to the Bush Administration and willingness to use the office to benefit the Republican Party rather than competence and the ability to perform the duties of the office. Yes the U.S. Attorneys are technically political appointees, but they are also expected to be competent prosecutors and individuals that, once appointed, will operate in an independent, bipartisan manner and according to the law. Their oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the United States and not one of loyalty to a particular administration, political party or individual.
Allow me to make a very strong statement. There is no ethical difference between the Bush Administration’s attempt to use the power of the U.S. Attorney’s office to influence the outcome of the political process and Adolf Hitler’s use of his Brown Shirts to intimidate voters and influence the outcome of the political process. One action is subtle and hidden and the other crass and open, but ethically they are both a betrayal of the electorate and the democratic process.
Talk about hitting a new low. I never thought I would be seriously comparing the actions of an American President to the actions of Adolf Hitler.
I had to shake my head at the pundits on Fox News laughing at Jimmy Carter calling the Bush Administration the worst in history and implying that he shouldn’t talk as his four years were an unmitigated disaster of their own. But there is a difference. There is a very BIG difference. Carter’s Administration may have been one of the most incompetent administrations in history, but no one could ever accuse Carter of lying or willfully trying to subvert the political process. In other words, no one ever questioned Carter’s integrity or his motives. With the Bush Administration on the other hand, it’s not just simple incompetence. It’s lying, underhandedness and deceit as well as incompetence!
They have repeatedly lied to the American people for political advantage. They have started a war for no apparent reason other than Georgie wanted to play War President. They have twisted and subverted the civil rights of Americans and others and they have consciously sacrificed the democratic principles upon which this country was founded for political gain. And on top of all that, they’re incompetent as hell! Just ask the folks that had the misfortune to be in the path of Katrina.
And that, young padawan, is WHY this is the worst administration in history.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Thoughts on the Death of Jerry Falwell
It’s quite possible that we agreed upon absolutely nothing (unless he happened to like chocolate ice cream). I think his demonizing the gay minority was a betrayal of American values as well as a betrayal of the values espoused by Jesus of Nazareth, the man Falwell claimed as his savior. I think the country is weaker because of his misleading evangelical Christians into supporting the questionable political positions associated with his homophobia. I think those misled evangelical Christians, in the final analysis, will be the ones to suffer most from his demagoguery.
In other words, I’m not going to shed any tears over his demise. Still, although I hated everything he stood for, at least I always knew where he stood. I’m sure there are many that will miss him. I’m just not one of them.
So long Jerry. I know you aren’t basking in the glory of God, but here’s hoping you’re not languishing in hell for threatening so many of God’s children with that fate.
In other words, I’m not going to shed any tears over his demise. Still, although I hated everything he stood for, at least I always knew where he stood. I’m sure there are many that will miss him. I’m just not one of them.
So long Jerry. I know you aren’t basking in the glory of God, but here’s hoping you’re not languishing in hell for threatening so many of God’s children with that fate.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Hectic, Hectic, HECTIC!!!
I don't know about you, but my life seems to go in cycles. Either nothing is happening or it feels like there aren't enough hours in the day or days in the week.
Did they shorten the week when I wasn't looking? I haven't even been able to steal a half-hour or so to update my poor neglected little blog. Yes, I miss you darling.
The biggest things seem to be Bush and Congress at logger heads over Iraq, Seat Beltless Johnny Corsine and the poor memory of Alberto Gonzalez.
Here's hoping the Democrats, and those Republicans with some integrity left, show some backbone and let Bush the Unhinged and his cronies understand that it's still the Meandering Herd that runs this country. I can hope, but I'm not going to bet any of my hard earned shekels on it.
I don't believe Corzine. Careening down the highway at 90 miles an hour heading to a meeting between Imus and the Rutgers girls basketball team, that he probably should have kept out of anyway, without a seat belt! Bada-bing, bada-boom, a little accident and he ends up in the hospital. This guy is not impressing me. How did he get his money anyway? He must have inherited it. The only good part about it was Cody took over while Seat Beltless Johnny was recovering. Probably got more accomplished in those few days then Johnny did the past year.
Which brings us to Alberto of the faulty memory. Anybody checked this guy for a loose brain? How could you not be able to recall so many things associated with your freaking job? You don't suppose he could have been fibbing do you? What a surprise; a Bush crony fibbing. You'd think they'd at least TRY to look competent.
Oh yeah, one other thing, I got a copy of Brian Flemming's "The God that Wasn't There." It's excellent when Flemming focuses on his main theme about Jesus being a myth, but is sort of uneven when it strays from the main argument. I thought his "Story of Jesus in Under Six Minutes" was simply great. Flemming puts together a combined gospels biography using archive film footage from a 1905 vintage French silent film and a 1950's vintage biblical serial. The combined result is an absolute hoot and well worth the price of the DVD.
To be honest Flemming doesn't convince me any more than Earl Doherty convinced me that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical creation. Nor have they convinced me that Paul doesn't refer to Jesus. He does when has to, and only when he has to, because Paul is totally focused on the brilliance of Paul. Even Jesus plays a back seat to Paul in Paul's mind. Heaven forbid that Paul should allow his own importance to be eclipsed by anyone, including the Son of God. At least that's how I figure Paul viewed things.
At the very end, Flemming films himself committing the Unforgivable Sin in the Chapel where he went to school as a child. The inclusion of the response to the Blashemy Challenge was a bit of a surprise. Personally I don't see the point of doing that, but I'm sort of weird.
Still, the Flemming film is certainly worth a look. I recommend that everyone watch it and come to their own conclusions. That reminds me, I really need to send Flemming an e-mail telling him how much I enjoyed his God film and expressing how much I'm not looking forward to his next Bat Boy film.
Did they shorten the week when I wasn't looking? I haven't even been able to steal a half-hour or so to update my poor neglected little blog. Yes, I miss you darling.
The biggest things seem to be Bush and Congress at logger heads over Iraq, Seat Beltless Johnny Corsine and the poor memory of Alberto Gonzalez.
Here's hoping the Democrats, and those Republicans with some integrity left, show some backbone and let Bush the Unhinged and his cronies understand that it's still the Meandering Herd that runs this country. I can hope, but I'm not going to bet any of my hard earned shekels on it.
I don't believe Corzine. Careening down the highway at 90 miles an hour heading to a meeting between Imus and the Rutgers girls basketball team, that he probably should have kept out of anyway, without a seat belt! Bada-bing, bada-boom, a little accident and he ends up in the hospital. This guy is not impressing me. How did he get his money anyway? He must have inherited it. The only good part about it was Cody took over while Seat Beltless Johnny was recovering. Probably got more accomplished in those few days then Johnny did the past year.
Which brings us to Alberto of the faulty memory. Anybody checked this guy for a loose brain? How could you not be able to recall so many things associated with your freaking job? You don't suppose he could have been fibbing do you? What a surprise; a Bush crony fibbing. You'd think they'd at least TRY to look competent.
Oh yeah, one other thing, I got a copy of Brian Flemming's "The God that Wasn't There." It's excellent when Flemming focuses on his main theme about Jesus being a myth, but is sort of uneven when it strays from the main argument. I thought his "Story of Jesus in Under Six Minutes" was simply great. Flemming puts together a combined gospels biography using archive film footage from a 1905 vintage French silent film and a 1950's vintage biblical serial. The combined result is an absolute hoot and well worth the price of the DVD.
To be honest Flemming doesn't convince me any more than Earl Doherty convinced me that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical creation. Nor have they convinced me that Paul doesn't refer to Jesus. He does when has to, and only when he has to, because Paul is totally focused on the brilliance of Paul. Even Jesus plays a back seat to Paul in Paul's mind. Heaven forbid that Paul should allow his own importance to be eclipsed by anyone, including the Son of God. At least that's how I figure Paul viewed things.
At the very end, Flemming films himself committing the Unforgivable Sin in the Chapel where he went to school as a child. The inclusion of the response to the Blashemy Challenge was a bit of a surprise. Personally I don't see the point of doing that, but I'm sort of weird.
Still, the Flemming film is certainly worth a look. I recommend that everyone watch it and come to their own conclusions. That reminds me, I really need to send Flemming an e-mail telling him how much I enjoyed his God film and expressing how much I'm not looking forward to his next Bat Boy film.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Take the Bible Test
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, of all people, has a Bible knowledge test on their website. Actually, it’s a very slanted chunk of propaganda which focuses on the, shall we say, less than reputable passages while totally ignoring the positive passages.
In any event I scored a whopping 46 out of 50. A score that the ffrf claims means I know more than a minister, priest or rabbi. I find that conclusion highly doubtful but I would hope that I would score as well on a more balanced quiz.
The web site claims that the average score is 15. Given that there are 4 choices per question, that’s only an eyelash above the 12.5 average you could expect parrots pecking the answers randomly to score.
Of the four I got wrong, two I was just flat out wrong and the other two I was trying to decide between two answers, one of which was the correct one, and finally chose the wrong one.
The two I was flat out wrong on were:
Which one of these phrases did Jesus not say about witnessing?
I chose "If I bear witness of myself, it is not true,” which apparently Jesus did say in John 5:31. The correct answer was, supposedly, "God is my witness."
What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?
I chose “Pluck out your eyes,” and Jesus did talk about this in Matthew 5:29, but in a different context. The right answer was, supposedly, “Castrate yourself.” However, I have to disagree with that one. The passages quoted, Matthew 19:11-12, are generally interpreted as referring to celibacy and not physical mutilation. However, Origen did interpret it that way and, well, you know (oh the pain).
The two where I chose the wrong one, although I thought about picking the right one, were:
What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
I chose "I wanted to see how far a man would bend before breaking” instead of "Satan dared me, so I destroyed Job for no reason at all."
How does the biblical god treat haughty women?
I chose “He makes them barren” instead of “He puts scabs on their heads and uncovers their private parts.”
As I’ve said many times, the Bible has lots and lots of good stuff in it. It also has lots of stuff that has to be taken in cultural context and which the modern zeitgeist demands that we reject.
How anyone, reading the book with even a hint of objectivity can conclude it’s the “word of God” is totally beyond my comprehension. What did God find so important about recording the census of the Hebrew tribes in Numbers?
The general population of the U.S. is probably as biblically illiterate as it is scientifically illiterate and the two tend to add together. If people knew what the Bible actually said, they wouldn’t be caught dead accepting its seven days of creation over evolution. So why am I opposed to teaching about the Bible in public schools? Only because I know that in many areas it wouldn’t be a balanced presentation and would effectively become an avenue for pitching Christianity.
In any event I scored a whopping 46 out of 50. A score that the ffrf claims means I know more than a minister, priest or rabbi. I find that conclusion highly doubtful but I would hope that I would score as well on a more balanced quiz.
The web site claims that the average score is 15. Given that there are 4 choices per question, that’s only an eyelash above the 12.5 average you could expect parrots pecking the answers randomly to score.
Of the four I got wrong, two I was just flat out wrong and the other two I was trying to decide between two answers, one of which was the correct one, and finally chose the wrong one.
The two I was flat out wrong on were:
Which one of these phrases did Jesus not say about witnessing?
I chose "If I bear witness of myself, it is not true,” which apparently Jesus did say in John 5:31. The correct answer was, supposedly, "God is my witness."
What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?
I chose “Pluck out your eyes,” and Jesus did talk about this in Matthew 5:29, but in a different context. The right answer was, supposedly, “Castrate yourself.” However, I have to disagree with that one. The passages quoted, Matthew 19:11-12, are generally interpreted as referring to celibacy and not physical mutilation. However, Origen did interpret it that way and, well, you know (oh the pain).
The two where I chose the wrong one, although I thought about picking the right one, were:
What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
I chose "I wanted to see how far a man would bend before breaking” instead of "Satan dared me, so I destroyed Job for no reason at all."
How does the biblical god treat haughty women?
I chose “He makes them barren” instead of “He puts scabs on their heads and uncovers their private parts.”
As I’ve said many times, the Bible has lots and lots of good stuff in it. It also has lots of stuff that has to be taken in cultural context and which the modern zeitgeist demands that we reject.
How anyone, reading the book with even a hint of objectivity can conclude it’s the “word of God” is totally beyond my comprehension. What did God find so important about recording the census of the Hebrew tribes in Numbers?
The general population of the U.S. is probably as biblically illiterate as it is scientifically illiterate and the two tend to add together. If people knew what the Bible actually said, they wouldn’t be caught dead accepting its seven days of creation over evolution. So why am I opposed to teaching about the Bible in public schools? Only because I know that in many areas it wouldn’t be a balanced presentation and would effectively become an avenue for pitching Christianity.
Lethal Injection Method Flawed?
The AP reports, that a study by the online journal PLoS Medicine, has concluded that the lethal injection methods used in U.S. executions sometimes fail to work as planned and can cause slow and painful deaths in violation of the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. Even when administered properly, the process may end up with the victim suffocating to death while conscious.
This is fairly strong evidence that the eleven states that have suspended executions by lethal injection have good reason to be concerned.
One of the culprits appears to be the “one-size fits all” philosophy that everyone, regardless of size, weight and body composition receives the same dosages. You have got to be kidding me? Even I know that isn’t going to work!
The study concluded that some inmates did not get an adequate dosage of the anesthetic. Dr. Leonidas Koniaris, a surgeon and co-author at the University of Miami said that under such conditions “The person would feel either asphyxiation or the burning sensation associated with the potassium. The potassium would cause extreme discomfort, something like being put on fire."
Just freaking wonderful.
Needless to say, Death Penalty proponents criticized the report and complained that the conclusions were based upon scant scientific evidence. Hmmm, personally I think that’s a good thing. It would be horrible if we had lots and lots of executions to study now wouldn’t it?
Mike Rushford, president of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, an organization concerned with victim’s rights said "It's more like political science than medical science."
I don’t know about that. Evidence, even based upon a smaller sample than needed to reach a definitive conclusion, is still evidence, and shouldn’t be so cavalierly dismissed. If you have contradictory evidence Mike, present it.
Steve Stewart, a prosecuting attorney in Clark County, Indiana, was quoted as saying "It doesn't matter a whole lot to me that someone may have felt some pain before they were administered poison as a method of execution."
The question is the definition of “some pain.” Luckily Steve ol’ boy, the U.S. Constitution does care even if you don’t.
To be honest with you, if I could be absolutely positive someone was guilty, I probably wouldn’t care all that much either. As a matter of fact, it would probably be quite satisfying. Unfortunately the cost of the Death Penalty which is far too arbitrary, far too prone to error, far too costly and far too great a burden on the families of victims is far too great a price to pay for a fleeting whiff of satisfaction.
This is fairly strong evidence that the eleven states that have suspended executions by lethal injection have good reason to be concerned.
One of the culprits appears to be the “one-size fits all” philosophy that everyone, regardless of size, weight and body composition receives the same dosages. You have got to be kidding me? Even I know that isn’t going to work!
The study concluded that some inmates did not get an adequate dosage of the anesthetic. Dr. Leonidas Koniaris, a surgeon and co-author at the University of Miami said that under such conditions “The person would feel either asphyxiation or the burning sensation associated with the potassium. The potassium would cause extreme discomfort, something like being put on fire."
Just freaking wonderful.
Needless to say, Death Penalty proponents criticized the report and complained that the conclusions were based upon scant scientific evidence. Hmmm, personally I think that’s a good thing. It would be horrible if we had lots and lots of executions to study now wouldn’t it?
Mike Rushford, president of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, an organization concerned with victim’s rights said "It's more like political science than medical science."
I don’t know about that. Evidence, even based upon a smaller sample than needed to reach a definitive conclusion, is still evidence, and shouldn’t be so cavalierly dismissed. If you have contradictory evidence Mike, present it.
Steve Stewart, a prosecuting attorney in Clark County, Indiana, was quoted as saying "It doesn't matter a whole lot to me that someone may have felt some pain before they were administered poison as a method of execution."
The question is the definition of “some pain.” Luckily Steve ol’ boy, the U.S. Constitution does care even if you don’t.
To be honest with you, if I could be absolutely positive someone was guilty, I probably wouldn’t care all that much either. As a matter of fact, it would probably be quite satisfying. Unfortunately the cost of the Death Penalty which is far too arbitrary, far too prone to error, far too costly and far too great a burden on the families of victims is far too great a price to pay for a fleeting whiff of satisfaction.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Hiring Loyal Bushies?
Oh my God! The latest thing to come out of the nightmare that is the Bush administration is that they have been hiring graduates from Conservative Christian colleges, the accreditation of which is sometimes questionable, and placing them in key posts in the administration.
At last count the number was something like 150. The big question is why? Either the Bush administration has now violated Article VI of the United States Constitution which states “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” or they’re assuming that only Conservative Christians are stupid enough, as all the polls seem to show, to stay blindly loyal to the worst presidential administration in history! It seems all Evangelicals need to stay happy with the administration is have Bush say “God” every two sentences and take a stand opposing Gay Marriage. If Sky Daddy exists, I’ll bet he cringes every time Bush mentions him.
I agree with Lee Iacocca when he says “We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right off a cliff.” I just hope we can get to January of 2009 before the damage becomes irreparable, if it isn’t so already.
Then again, I’m not all that sure Bush is going to leave office quietly in January of 2009. I wouldn’t put it past this crew to pull off a “terrorist attack,” then declare a state of emergency and try to keep power. How in the world can anyone with half a brain even consider voting Republican in 2008?
At last count the number was something like 150. The big question is why? Either the Bush administration has now violated Article VI of the United States Constitution which states “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” or they’re assuming that only Conservative Christians are stupid enough, as all the polls seem to show, to stay blindly loyal to the worst presidential administration in history! It seems all Evangelicals need to stay happy with the administration is have Bush say “God” every two sentences and take a stand opposing Gay Marriage. If Sky Daddy exists, I’ll bet he cringes every time Bush mentions him.
I agree with Lee Iacocca when he says “We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right off a cliff.” I just hope we can get to January of 2009 before the damage becomes irreparable, if it isn’t so already.
Then again, I’m not all that sure Bush is going to leave office quietly in January of 2009. I wouldn’t put it past this crew to pull off a “terrorist attack,” then declare a state of emergency and try to keep power. How in the world can anyone with half a brain even consider voting Republican in 2008?
Virginia Tech
There is really nothing I can say. Thirty-two dead is a tragedy beyond words. Could the university have reacted in a better way which could have saved lives? Probably, but it’s always easy to look back and see things like that. It’s rarely so easy to see them when you’re in the middle of the events.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Day of Truth?
The annual “Day of Silence,” a student led demonstration protesting gay harassment, will take place on College and High School campuses across the country this year on April 18. This is a stand against hatred and discrimination organized by students themselves. Ahh, it almost makes me feel young again.
Unfortunately, conservative Christian organizations have been trying to counter the Day of Silence movement the last three years with what they are calling a “Day of Truth.” On the “Day of Truth” Christians emphasize the interpretation that the Biblical position is that homosexuality is immoral and a sin. This of course presupposes that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic imperative such as being left handed or having blue eyes.
Let’s talk about this “Day of Truth” for a moment. I guess one has to accept the argument that this is simply Freedom of Speech in action. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Once we start trying to censor opinions we don’t like we’re going to be in serious trouble. Well, while that may be the case, I’m entitled to think some opinions stink and this is one of those cases.
I have a hard time seeing any difference between gay bashing, anti-Semitism and racism. If Christians are entitled to pitch a “homosexuality is immoral” theme on school property, are skinheads entitled to pitch a “Jews are the murderers of Jesus” message and KKK enthusiasts entitled to pitch a “Blacks are inferior” message? Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, but aren’t the public schools supposed to be teaching equality and equal protection under the law as principles of American Democracy?
If we’re going to allow highlighting Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as proof that homosexuality is immoral, then would it be ok to highlight Matthew 27:25 as proof that Jews are responsible for the murder of Jesus, and Genesis 9:26-27 as proof that God intended Blacks to be slaves? Let’s remember that Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death of those engaging in homosexual activities. Are we going to accept a call for the murder of homosexuals on this so-called “Day of Truth?”
No I don’t expect anyone to allow an anti-Semitic or anti-Black rally on public school grounds, we’ve at least gotten beyond that (with the possible exception of Don Imus). Yes you have the right to your opinion, and yes you have the right to express that opinion, but I have the right to express my opinion as well. So, dear Christians, I think your opinion sucks.
Unfortunately, conservative Christian organizations have been trying to counter the Day of Silence movement the last three years with what they are calling a “Day of Truth.” On the “Day of Truth” Christians emphasize the interpretation that the Biblical position is that homosexuality is immoral and a sin. This of course presupposes that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic imperative such as being left handed or having blue eyes.
Let’s talk about this “Day of Truth” for a moment. I guess one has to accept the argument that this is simply Freedom of Speech in action. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Once we start trying to censor opinions we don’t like we’re going to be in serious trouble. Well, while that may be the case, I’m entitled to think some opinions stink and this is one of those cases.
I have a hard time seeing any difference between gay bashing, anti-Semitism and racism. If Christians are entitled to pitch a “homosexuality is immoral” theme on school property, are skinheads entitled to pitch a “Jews are the murderers of Jesus” message and KKK enthusiasts entitled to pitch a “Blacks are inferior” message? Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, but aren’t the public schools supposed to be teaching equality and equal protection under the law as principles of American Democracy?
If we’re going to allow highlighting Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as proof that homosexuality is immoral, then would it be ok to highlight Matthew 27:25 as proof that Jews are responsible for the murder of Jesus, and Genesis 9:26-27 as proof that God intended Blacks to be slaves? Let’s remember that Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death of those engaging in homosexual activities. Are we going to accept a call for the murder of homosexuals on this so-called “Day of Truth?”
No I don’t expect anyone to allow an anti-Semitic or anti-Black rally on public school grounds, we’ve at least gotten beyond that (with the possible exception of Don Imus). Yes you have the right to your opinion, and yes you have the right to express that opinion, but I have the right to express my opinion as well. So, dear Christians, I think your opinion sucks.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Another Country to Cross off my List
India. I’m never going to India. According to the AFP, British model Elizabeth Hurley and her husband Arun Nayar may be prosecuted in the Indian city of Jodhpur because they allegedly mocked Hindu traditions with their "showcase" wedding.
Apparently India has a law which makes it an offence, punishable by three years in jail, to "outrage" any group's religion with "deliberate and malicious intention."
Three years? THREE YEARS!!! One wonders what the definition of “outrage” might be? Does that mean if anyone belonging to the religious group is outraged they can try to get you put into jail? Screw that. I can just hear all the right wing Christian wackos here saying hey, we could use something like that to keep outrages like The DaVinci Code and James Cameron’s tomb of Jesus from irritating Christians. Sure, to hell with free speech and freedom of the press, except for Christians of course so they can criticize and insult everyone else.
Ah yes, religion is such a wonderful thing and so compatible with democracy. When are we going to grow up and let go of this superstitious nonsense. Yo, India, allow me to introduce you to a friend of mine. This is Mr. First Amendment, one of my best buddies. I think it’s time to buy my copy of the first amendment another nice present. Maybe it would like a nice new oak frame.
Apparently India has a law which makes it an offence, punishable by three years in jail, to "outrage" any group's religion with "deliberate and malicious intention."
Three years? THREE YEARS!!! One wonders what the definition of “outrage” might be? Does that mean if anyone belonging to the religious group is outraged they can try to get you put into jail? Screw that. I can just hear all the right wing Christian wackos here saying hey, we could use something like that to keep outrages like The DaVinci Code and James Cameron’s tomb of Jesus from irritating Christians. Sure, to hell with free speech and freedom of the press, except for Christians of course so they can criticize and insult everyone else.
Ah yes, religion is such a wonderful thing and so compatible with democracy. When are we going to grow up and let go of this superstitious nonsense. Yo, India, allow me to introduce you to a friend of mine. This is Mr. First Amendment, one of my best buddies. I think it’s time to buy my copy of the first amendment another nice present. Maybe it would like a nice new oak frame.
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.
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?
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?
Monday, April 09, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 23, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 16, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
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!
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
