Holy shit! I remember when it was 75 cents.
July 13, 2008
Kentucky snakehandlin' news
Handling snakes is practiced in a handful of fundamentalist churches across Appalachia, based on the interpretation of Bible verses saying True Believers™ can take up serpents without being harmed. The practice is illegal in most states, including Kentucky.Snakehandlin' preacher pinched.
Gregory James Coots, 36, is pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name in Middlesboro, where a Tennessee woman died after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a service in 1995. Her husband died three years later when he was bitten by a snake in northeastern Alabama.
Said zoo director Jim Harrison, "You don't play with a venomous snake. If you do, you're an idiot."
Strike Mark 16:9-20 from your Bibles, says other preacher.
July 12, 2008
Unprecedented GOP gay scandal
John McCain girds his loins.
"Alabama is a state where actions definitely speak louder than words. More than just talk, John McCain's strong record of support for state rights, and his devotion to the conservative principles of protecting life and the institution of marriage make him the right leader for Alabama." — AG Troy KingThere it was, gone. Is there any truth to the rumors? Never mind. Under the bus with you, pretty boy.
Vote for Obama
Because then, Stephen Baldwin will flee the country.
But seriously, here is a highly entertaining set of observations from Chez Pazienza about the blog Gawker.com and its associated "personalities," including one Emily Gould, the object of a recent and cringeworthy confessional in The New York Times Magazine.
But seriously, here is a highly entertaining set of observations from Chez Pazienza about the blog Gawker.com and its associated "personalities," including one Emily Gould, the object of a recent and cringeworthy confessional in The New York Times Magazine.
For a moment, I couldn't help but think that being told you're too much of a prick to work at Gawker is like being told you're too gay to audition for the lead in Torch Song Trilogy.Best of all, however, is Jimmy Kimmel's deft (and perhaps too easy) evisceration of Emily Gould on Larry King Live, which is embedded at the conclusion of Chez Pazienza's tour de farce.
Jimmy Kimmel: So people are out and they have their cellphones, they can send a little message to you and say, 'I just saw Gwyneth Paltrow at the movies' and that way, when Gwyneth Paltrow comes out of the movies, there could be at least a dozen psychopaths waiting for her.Here it is, direct from YouTube (5:29).
July 11, 2008
On Justice Ziegler's portrayal
Further to an earlier Capital Times editorial, I think it's long since about time that the "ethically-challenged" descriptor is dropped with respect to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette K. Ziegler.
It's over, she readily and immediately acknowledged the oversights, she paid a price, and she took her lumps in public from her own colleagues, who are likely among the people she respects the most.
In fact a more compelling argument might be made that Justice Ziegler is most likely to exercise greater care and is therefore least likely to put herself in breach of ethics, having presumably learned a valuable lesson regardless of the severity of her actions as a circuit court judge. And let's face it, they were relatively innocuous.
Individuals may keep paying themselves, in one sense or another, for past transgressions, but at some point, on the terms of the community at large, debt and restitution is paid in full. And it seems to me that point was reached some time ago in Justice Ziegler's case.
IMHO, as they say.
It's over, she readily and immediately acknowledged the oversights, she paid a price, and she took her lumps in public from her own colleagues, who are likely among the people she respects the most.
In fact a more compelling argument might be made that Justice Ziegler is most likely to exercise greater care and is therefore least likely to put herself in breach of ethics, having presumably learned a valuable lesson regardless of the severity of her actions as a circuit court judge. And let's face it, they were relatively innocuous.
Individuals may keep paying themselves, in one sense or another, for past transgressions, but at some point, on the terms of the community at large, debt and restitution is paid in full. And it seems to me that point was reached some time ago in Justice Ziegler's case.
IMHO, as they say.
Ultimately, it's all about the brats
This is one of the many reasons why I love the great State of Wisconsin.
As the Capital Times keeps up its editorializing on the Epic Systems/Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce kerfuffle, many of the attendant reader comments have to do with Johnsonville Sausage LLC, a popular Sheboygan Falls manufacturer of bratwurst and WMC member.
As far as I'm concerned, and since long before I ever heard of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the question has been from times immemorial a no brainer.
My only complaint is that my favorite Usinger's product, the big, fat pre-cooked brats that come vertically packed in sets of four, are kind of hard to find. For example, the Metrosexual Market* at Van Buren and Juneau never seems to have them.
Fortunately having had occasion to visit the Sendik's in Mequon a couple of weeks ago, I found a giant cache of them priced attractively at $1.99 per package, so I wisely stocked the hell up.
Here's my recipe:
1) Boil the brats until the casing just starts to separate at the ends.
2) Place brat in brat bun from the Metrosexual Market bakery.
3) Apply mustard, chopped raw onions, Polish sauerkraut (that's the kind with caraway seeds), and your choice of prizewinning Wisconsin cheese from Brennan's in Brookfield (I like a nice mozzarella).
4) Place entire assembly under broiler for about 30 seconds (may vary depending on proximity to broiler element).
5) Consume.
6) Repeat.
* I have no idea why they call it that, but a lot of people do.
As the Capital Times keeps up its editorializing on the Epic Systems/Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce kerfuffle, many of the attendant reader comments have to do with Johnsonville Sausage LLC, a popular Sheboygan Falls manufacturer of bratwurst and WMC member.
As far as I'm concerned, and since long before I ever heard of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the question has been from times immemorial a no brainer.
My only complaint is that my favorite Usinger's product, the big, fat pre-cooked brats that come vertically packed in sets of four, are kind of hard to find. For example, the Metrosexual Market* at Van Buren and Juneau never seems to have them.
Fortunately having had occasion to visit the Sendik's in Mequon a couple of weeks ago, I found a giant cache of them priced attractively at $1.99 per package, so I wisely stocked the hell up.
Here's my recipe:
1) Boil the brats until the casing just starts to separate at the ends.
2) Place brat in brat bun from the Metrosexual Market bakery.
3) Apply mustard, chopped raw onions, Polish sauerkraut (that's the kind with caraway seeds), and your choice of prizewinning Wisconsin cheese from Brennan's in Brookfield (I like a nice mozzarella).
4) Place entire assembly under broiler for about 30 seconds (may vary depending on proximity to broiler element).
5) Consume.
6) Repeat.
* I have no idea why they call it that, but a lot of people do.
July 10, 2008
Phil Gramm thrown under imaginary bus
Texas Senator unwelcome even in Minsk, says McCain.
At least Phil Gramm didn't have the recreational urologist Jesse Jackson coming at him with a pair of hedge clippers.
At least Phil Gramm didn't have the recreational urologist Jesse Jackson coming at him with a pair of hedge clippers.
Bill Donohue's craziest conniption yet
Wild Bill Donohue of Catholic League fame is beside himself with Holy Rage after a Florida college student removed a biscuit from an Orlando church and "held it hostage" in a ziploc bag for a week.
A spokesperson for the local diocese compared Webster Cook's move to a "hate crime," but Wild Bill Donohue said it was "beyond hate speech" and indeed, he could barely imagine "anything more vile."
Apparently Wild Bill Donohue is serious. What's hard to imagine is anything more patently ridiculous than not being able to imagine anything more vile than removing a biscuit from a church.
Meanwhile, irreligious rabble rouser and blogger PZ Myers has requested of readers to "score [him] some consecrated communion wafers," which he promises to "treat with profound disrespect" and photograph the results for publication.
Myers is receiving death threats (again), and Wild Bill is trying to get him fired from the University of Minnesota. Over a biscuit.
I may send a little note to UM's president Robert Bruininks.
It's the yeast I could do.
A spokesperson for the local diocese compared Webster Cook's move to a "hate crime," but Wild Bill Donohue said it was "beyond hate speech" and indeed, he could barely imagine "anything more vile."
Apparently Wild Bill Donohue is serious. What's hard to imagine is anything more patently ridiculous than not being able to imagine anything more vile than removing a biscuit from a church.
Meanwhile, irreligious rabble rouser and blogger PZ Myers has requested of readers to "score [him] some consecrated communion wafers," which he promises to "treat with profound disrespect" and photograph the results for publication.
Myers is receiving death threats (again), and Wild Bill is trying to get him fired from the University of Minnesota. Over a biscuit.
I may send a little note to UM's president Robert Bruininks.
It's the yeast I could do.
Julaine Appling wants gays "charged" with fraud
Just the other day, Christian "Family" Crusader Julaine Appling wanted gays imprisoned. Now she wants them "charged with fraud" also, according to a Madison teevee station.
WKOW says a Verona, WI couple is planning on tying the knot in California next month. I guess the thing to do when you're a reporter covering a story like is this to solicit the comments of some nut:
I could just as easily make a physician's license out of some construction paper, crayons, and glue but nobody's going to "charge" me with fraud until I tried to cut somebody's appendix out.
WKOW says a Verona, WI couple is planning on tying the knot in California next month. I guess the thing to do when you're a reporter covering a story like is this to solicit the comments of some nut:
"You purposely left the state for another state and you get married and you know it's not going to be legal where you reside and you have every intention of returning, that's defrauding the Government," Appling says.Good grief, woman, get a grip.
I could just as easily make a physician's license out of some construction paper, crayons, and glue but nobody's going to "charge" me with fraud until I tried to cut somebody's appendix out.
WI Supreme Court quote of the day
[I]t is always suspicious to me when an opinion asserts that the meaning [of a statute] is plain and then proceeds to spend a multitude of pages explaining it.State v. Grunke, 2008 WI 82, ¶45 (Bradley, J., dissenting).*
* .pdf; 34 pgs. Or, if you prefer, the .html version.
James Buchen can barely get a word in edgewise
Madison's left-leaning Capital Times certainly has a sense of humor.
Last week, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce's vice president of government relations, James A. Buchen, fired off a comically intemperate "news column" complaining that the free speech rights of Wisconsin businesses were "under assault."
This morning the Capital Times reproduced* Buchen's screed on its opinion pages for several hundred thousand more readers.
I think everybody with the means to do so should likewise reproduce, link to, or what have you in solidarity with Mr. Buchen in order to demonstrate the awful, tortious, oppressive, repressive suppression of speech that WMC must endure.
Good lord, what is this country coming to? It's getting so bad, WMC can hardly spend a few million bucks defaming anybody anymore.
* Scroll down to find a Buchenite calling Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a "Stalinist" whilst simultaneously accusing "the left" of demonizing the opposition.
Last week, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce's vice president of government relations, James A. Buchen, fired off a comically intemperate "news column" complaining that the free speech rights of Wisconsin businesses were "under assault."
This morning the Capital Times reproduced* Buchen's screed on its opinion pages for several hundred thousand more readers.
I think everybody with the means to do so should likewise reproduce, link to, or what have you in solidarity with Mr. Buchen in order to demonstrate the awful, tortious, oppressive, repressive suppression of speech that WMC must endure.
Good lord, what is this country coming to? It's getting so bad, WMC can hardly spend a few million bucks defaming anybody anymore.
* Scroll down to find a Buchenite calling Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a "Stalinist" whilst simultaneously accusing "the left" of demonizing the opposition.
July 9, 2008
Couldn't have said it better myself
Although I'm sure that I did, many times over, in much greater detail.
Because this is not a conservative blog, I generally don't simply copy and paste giant swaths of text from other sources, but this merits an exception. From an editorial in today's Capital Times:
Because this is not a conservative blog, I generally don't simply copy and paste giant swaths of text from other sources, but this merits an exception. From an editorial in today's Capital Times:
WMC's ugly meddling in last April's Supreme Court race between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler was simply a blunt and relatively immediate example of its slash-and-burn approach to both Wisconsin politics and Wisconsin's future.Additionally:
Butler was, by every measure, the more qualified candidate. He was supported by Republicans and Democrats, prosecutors, sheriffs and local judges. He won the lion's share of newspaper endorsements. Why? Because Butler was a balanced and responsible jurist, like the majority of those who have been elected to the highest court by Wisconsin voters.
Butler was of, by and for the Wisconsin tradition of independent judges who serve the people rather than special-interest masters, and WMC attacked him for that.
WMC wanted — and needed — a justice who would act not as a free-thinking and responsible man of the law but as a rubber stamp for the self-serving agenda.
They found what they wanted in Michael Gableman. And they played their part in the foul campaign that narrowly elected one of the least-qualified and least-respected justices in state history.
The Epic officials added, "This is an ethical decision, not a political decision."That's right, there isn't. But that won't deter any number of fabricators from imagining and opining otherwise.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement, or its sincerity.
Contradictory proverbs
Epic's target richly deserves such treatment; WMC's role in our recent judicial elections was deplorable.So far, so good.
Epic's actions are aimed at silencing political expression and preventing political association.Give me a break. Does anybody actually expect that WMC will be "silenced"? Judging from WMC's own reaction, its True Believers will be energized, if anything. We'll find out soon enough.
And if anybody's trying to "silence political expression," it's Prof. Howard Schweber, who continues to raise implications of illegality on the part of Epic Systems. Could a plaintiff be in the works?
Stay tuned, fans of recreational litigation.
The Gay Science
Speaking of links, an observation here pursuant to the local Christian "Family" Crusader Julaine Appling scored a couple, one from Rick Esenberg and the other via Emily Mills.
Interestingly, in their respective comments threads, Prof. Esenberg deleted one along the same lines as one that Ms. Mills let stand. The comments raise questions about Julaine Appling's own sexuality which, under any other circumstances, would be nobody's business except hers and not even remarkable.
But given her public notoriety as one of Wisconsin's highest-profile homo-obsessors, it's a matter of legitimate inquiry, at least. Esenberg wrote that the anonymous comment was "arguably defamatory." I don't know about defamatory, albeit the Shark is certainly entitled to administer his blog as he sees fit.
The comment at the Lost Albatross thread, on the other hand, leads here. Not quite anonymous, but not hard evidence either.
An outfit called the Maranatha Baptist Bible College has a "sermon" of Julaine Appling's archived at this link. But she objects to that description because, as she says, "I am not preaching, alright? I don't think that's an appropriate role for women."
If the rest of her remarks aren't preaching, then I don't know what preaching is. It's preaching related to the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, in solicitation of support for which Appling claims "God in His Providence touched me very distinctly and said, 'This one's yours, Girl.' And He, by His Grace, has enabled me at this point to do what He has asked me to do."
Did you know that God doesn't write Bibles anymore, He writes State constitutional amendments, through His personal scribes.
Therewith begins a 20-odd minute ramble on the subject of Genesis Chapter Two, which Appling apparently takes literally, right down to the creation-by-rib and the divinely selected role of women as the "help meets" to men. If you're looking for scholarly Biblical exegesis, you won't find it there. What you will find is an entirely credulous, literal acceptance of allegorical Middle Eastern folklore.
I don't get the obsession with homosexuals, which seems to be a feature of both fundamentalist style Christianity and political conservatism. Personally I don't think about gay people too often. Christian conservatives will often tell you they aren't so much concerned with gay people per se, but rather their focus is on "homosexual acts."
Maybe that's why I'm not a conservative Christian because, trust me, homosexual acts are about the last things I care to focus on.* It makes little sense to me why self-proclaimed anti-homosexuals would want to focus on homosexual acts because the only people who should be focusing on homosexual acts are, well, homosexuals.
I don't recall having any opinion about homosexuals at all, aside from the usual high school tittering, until I read the late Graham Chapman's mostly hilarious autobiography many, many years ago.
I say mostly hilarious because it does contain at least one serious moment,** where Chapman discusses his own homosexuality. Why are two men in love the objects of so much opprobrium, Chapman wondered, when what's needed in the world is more love, not less. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.
Wasn't the main Biblical character that Christians claim to follow all about the love, also? There's more than a little hypocrisy at work within these condemnations of homosexuality. And that hypocrisy just might be a manifestation of some deep closeting.
* The male configurations, at least.
** Apart from Keith Moon nearly falling off the side of a hotel attempting to retrieve a bottle of gin from the adjacent suite.
Interestingly, in their respective comments threads, Prof. Esenberg deleted one along the same lines as one that Ms. Mills let stand. The comments raise questions about Julaine Appling's own sexuality which, under any other circumstances, would be nobody's business except hers and not even remarkable.
But given her public notoriety as one of Wisconsin's highest-profile homo-obsessors, it's a matter of legitimate inquiry, at least. Esenberg wrote that the anonymous comment was "arguably defamatory." I don't know about defamatory, albeit the Shark is certainly entitled to administer his blog as he sees fit.
The comment at the Lost Albatross thread, on the other hand, leads here. Not quite anonymous, but not hard evidence either.
An outfit called the Maranatha Baptist Bible College has a "sermon" of Julaine Appling's archived at this link. But she objects to that description because, as she says, "I am not preaching, alright? I don't think that's an appropriate role for women."
If the rest of her remarks aren't preaching, then I don't know what preaching is. It's preaching related to the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, in solicitation of support for which Appling claims "God in His Providence touched me very distinctly and said, 'This one's yours, Girl.' And He, by His Grace, has enabled me at this point to do what He has asked me to do."
Did you know that God doesn't write Bibles anymore, He writes State constitutional amendments, through His personal scribes.
Therewith begins a 20-odd minute ramble on the subject of Genesis Chapter Two, which Appling apparently takes literally, right down to the creation-by-rib and the divinely selected role of women as the "help meets" to men. If you're looking for scholarly Biblical exegesis, you won't find it there. What you will find is an entirely credulous, literal acceptance of allegorical Middle Eastern folklore.
I don't get the obsession with homosexuals, which seems to be a feature of both fundamentalist style Christianity and political conservatism. Personally I don't think about gay people too often. Christian conservatives will often tell you they aren't so much concerned with gay people per se, but rather their focus is on "homosexual acts."
Maybe that's why I'm not a conservative Christian because, trust me, homosexual acts are about the last things I care to focus on.* It makes little sense to me why self-proclaimed anti-homosexuals would want to focus on homosexual acts because the only people who should be focusing on homosexual acts are, well, homosexuals.
I don't recall having any opinion about homosexuals at all, aside from the usual high school tittering, until I read the late Graham Chapman's mostly hilarious autobiography many, many years ago.
I say mostly hilarious because it does contain at least one serious moment,** where Chapman discusses his own homosexuality. Why are two men in love the objects of so much opprobrium, Chapman wondered, when what's needed in the world is more love, not less. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.
Wasn't the main Biblical character that Christians claim to follow all about the love, also? There's more than a little hypocrisy at work within these condemnations of homosexuality. And that hypocrisy just might be a manifestation of some deep closeting.
* The male configurations, at least.
** Apart from Keith Moon nearly falling off the side of a hotel attempting to retrieve a bottle of gin from the adjacent suite.
July 8, 2008
Gableman lovers remain in denial
Here's a disingenuously oddball employment of my reaction to Epic Systems's decision to avoid vendors associated with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.
At something called Fox Politics, Lance Burri uses this item as a springboard to ramble about "sacrifice" and "courage" which, for one thing, aren't necessary components of heroism and for another, two things I didn't even mention, let alone attribute to Epic Systems.
It's always nice to get a link — even if it is for the benefit of readers of Fox Politics, whatever that is — but it would be even nicer if the linker actually read what it is they're linking to.
Hopefully the Fox Politics readership's respective comprehension is at least marginally more adept than Lance Burri's.
I did contemplate a hypothetical situation whereby an Epic purchasing agent ended up spending more than necessary because the low bidder was involved with WMC's scurrilous campaign of lies against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler.
But I hardly consider that either courage or sacrifice. I was simply acknowledging one particular high profile Wisconsinite's recognition of a fact that many of us low profile Wisconsinites started noticing a long time ago. Call it vindication, if you wish.
For what it's worth, Burri's is an amusing ramble, I suppose, and he can "boycott" whomever he likes. Who cares? Fill your boots, Jack, it's a free country. Or so conservatives are fond of telling us. When it suits their purposes.
Besides, the said ramble impressed the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran enough to cite it approvingly, so that's something. If McIlheran has his way, maybe it'll even make Best of the Wisconsin Blogs. It would be a perfect choice, unwitting incoherence generally being a prerequisite for selection.
For his part, McIlheran would do well to actually read Epic's initial press release, and the further clarifications reported by the Isthmus two days later, all of which are embedded in my modest little tribute to Epic's founder and CEO Judith Faulkner.
Yet McIlheran asserts that Epic's position is that Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce "is just too, well, political in a way that Epic Health Systems [sic] doesn't like."
(He'd also be well advised to report the company's correct name. Epic Healthcare Systems Corp. was administratively dissolved in 1996. I hear tell that the accurate rendering of proper names is a key to establishing a reporter's credibility, the inference being if a reporter can't even get a proper name right, what else did he get wrong.)
Burri and McIlheran are free to believe it's all about politics, of course. But it isn't. It's about dissembling and falsehoods.
In any event, none of this is surprising, since McIlheran himself played right along with those who were blatantly and shamelessly lying about Justice Butler's record throughout the election campaign.
So it's little wonder that he continues to insist on missing the point even at this stage of the game. Guilelessness, thy name is McIlheran.
At something called Fox Politics, Lance Burri uses this item as a springboard to ramble about "sacrifice" and "courage" which, for one thing, aren't necessary components of heroism and for another, two things I didn't even mention, let alone attribute to Epic Systems.
It's always nice to get a link — even if it is for the benefit of readers of Fox Politics, whatever that is — but it would be even nicer if the linker actually read what it is they're linking to.
Hopefully the Fox Politics readership's respective comprehension is at least marginally more adept than Lance Burri's.
I did contemplate a hypothetical situation whereby an Epic purchasing agent ended up spending more than necessary because the low bidder was involved with WMC's scurrilous campaign of lies against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler.
But I hardly consider that either courage or sacrifice. I was simply acknowledging one particular high profile Wisconsinite's recognition of a fact that many of us low profile Wisconsinites started noticing a long time ago. Call it vindication, if you wish.
For what it's worth, Burri's is an amusing ramble, I suppose, and he can "boycott" whomever he likes. Who cares? Fill your boots, Jack, it's a free country. Or so conservatives are fond of telling us. When it suits their purposes.
Besides, the said ramble impressed the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran enough to cite it approvingly, so that's something. If McIlheran has his way, maybe it'll even make Best of the Wisconsin Blogs. It would be a perfect choice, unwitting incoherence generally being a prerequisite for selection.
For his part, McIlheran would do well to actually read Epic's initial press release, and the further clarifications reported by the Isthmus two days later, all of which are embedded in my modest little tribute to Epic's founder and CEO Judith Faulkner.
Yet McIlheran asserts that Epic's position is that Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce "is just too, well, political in a way that Epic Health Systems [sic] doesn't like."
(He'd also be well advised to report the company's correct name. Epic Healthcare Systems Corp. was administratively dissolved in 1996. I hear tell that the accurate rendering of proper names is a key to establishing a reporter's credibility, the inference being if a reporter can't even get a proper name right, what else did he get wrong.)
Burri and McIlheran are free to believe it's all about politics, of course. But it isn't. It's about dissembling and falsehoods.
In any event, none of this is surprising, since McIlheran himself played right along with those who were blatantly and shamelessly lying about Justice Butler's record throughout the election campaign.
So it's little wonder that he continues to insist on missing the point even at this stage of the game. Guilelessness, thy name is McIlheran.
A thug by any other name
One thing I have noticed cropping up from time to time in the Wisconsin blogosphere is some controversy over the word "thug" and its application.
For example, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran reminds us that a local police captain once produced an internal memo using the word several times and was subsequently disciplined.
The thug memo was deemed not to be promoting good relations between the police and the neighborhood in question. "Call them like they are," advises McIlheran, and I have to agree.
That's what words are for and if somebody is a violent malefactor, then they are a thug, by definition. And I think it's safe to say that shooting four people to death at a house party certainly qualifies and whoever did it is a thug. And much worse.
Of course when the police, or anyone else, refer to an entire Milwaukee neighborhood or aldermanic district as being inhabited by thugs, that's a different story. The offensive implication, I presume, being a racial one, because "thug" has been appropriated practically as a term of endearment by hip hop culture (I'd be more careful where I pointed that gun, young fella).
In that context, thug is constructively a compliment.
But even so, when Captain Glenn D. Frankovis was referring to the thugs of Metcalfe Park, he wasn't talking about the non-thugs of Metcalfe Park. Only the thugs. I don't think he meant that everybody in Metcalfe Park is a thug, simply that there are thugs in Metcalfe Park. Which is kind of a blinding glimpse of the obvious because there are thugs, and potential thugs, everywhere.
Another J-S columnist, Eugene Kane, is occasionally taken to task for describing criminal ne'er-do-wells as "knuckleheads." Evidently his detractors would prefer that he use stronger language, because knucklehead sounds like something out of The Three Stooges.
Maybe one man's thug is another man's knucklehead but somebody can be a knucklehead without being a thug. See, e.g., Ben Stein.
So in the spirit of compromise should the topic arise at this blog, the preferred usage shall be "ruffian." I'm slightly more partial to "blackguard," but given the apparent racial implications for some of "thug," that's likely not the best choice either.
For example, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran reminds us that a local police captain once produced an internal memo using the word several times and was subsequently disciplined.
The thug memo was deemed not to be promoting good relations between the police and the neighborhood in question. "Call them like they are," advises McIlheran, and I have to agree.
That's what words are for and if somebody is a violent malefactor, then they are a thug, by definition. And I think it's safe to say that shooting four people to death at a house party certainly qualifies and whoever did it is a thug. And much worse.
Of course when the police, or anyone else, refer to an entire Milwaukee neighborhood or aldermanic district as being inhabited by thugs, that's a different story. The offensive implication, I presume, being a racial one, because "thug" has been appropriated practically as a term of endearment by hip hop culture (I'd be more careful where I pointed that gun, young fella).
In that context, thug is constructively a compliment.
But even so, when Captain Glenn D. Frankovis was referring to the thugs of Metcalfe Park, he wasn't talking about the non-thugs of Metcalfe Park. Only the thugs. I don't think he meant that everybody in Metcalfe Park is a thug, simply that there are thugs in Metcalfe Park. Which is kind of a blinding glimpse of the obvious because there are thugs, and potential thugs, everywhere.
Another J-S columnist, Eugene Kane, is occasionally taken to task for describing criminal ne'er-do-wells as "knuckleheads." Evidently his detractors would prefer that he use stronger language, because knucklehead sounds like something out of The Three Stooges.
Maybe one man's thug is another man's knucklehead but somebody can be a knucklehead without being a thug. See, e.g., Ben Stein.
So in the spirit of compromise should the topic arise at this blog, the preferred usage shall be "ruffian." I'm slightly more partial to "blackguard," but given the apparent racial implications for some of "thug," that's likely not the best choice either.
July 6, 2008
Jensen interceptor
Not only does this Connecticut attorney think Mark D. Jensen will get a new trial, he predicts Jensen won't even be convicted:
In the Jensen case, defense counsel and prosecutors appear to agree the Giles decision raises the strong probability the Wisconsin appeals court will grant Jensen a new trial. If the state is unable to demonstrate the requisite intent described in Giles’ case, it is unlikely Jensen will ever be convicted again in the poisoning death of his wife.Bold prophecy! Thanks to Justice Scalia.
WMC can't spin away from lies
Dave Zweifel in the Capital Times relates an amusing anecdote, in which a spokesmodel for Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce calls up to complain about one of Zweifel's previous columns.
According to Zweifel, WMC's Jim Pugh "insisted ... that the 'Loophole Louie' label they tagged on Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was simply good-natured ribbing."
Is that so.
Consider WMC's teevee ad "Looking for Loopholes," in which an all-but-tearful narrator intones from the following script:
Merriam-Webster defines "loophole" as "a means of escape; esp. an ambiguity or omission that allows one to evade the intent of a law or contract."
Justice Butler was the lone dissenter in Jensen, as against the six Justices in the majority, led by WMC's "traditionalist" avatar, former Justice Jon P. Wilcox. (That's how you "almost jeopardize" a prosecution, apparently.) This is what the majority held:
From the opening paragraph of Justice Butler's dissent in Jensen:
To be sure, should the man convicted of poisoning his wife, Mark D. Jensen, receive a new trial — which seems likely — it will be thanks to Justice Scalia and his conservative colleagues, and certainly not to Justice Butler's one-man dissent. In other words, Justice Scalia closed a loophole, he didn't discover one.
And the loophole Scalia closed is exactly the one to which Justice Butler objected. Elsewhere a WMC spokesmodel referred to Butler's objection, an objection grounded in the original understanding of the United States Constitution, as "a needless technicality."
Last week WMC issued a brazenly hypocritical press release, accusing its critics of waging "an organized campaign of misinformation." I would go further. WMC's characterization of Justice Butler's dissent in Jensen is beyond misinformation. It's a flat out lie.
According to Zweifel, WMC's Jim Pugh "insisted ... that the 'Loophole Louie' label they tagged on Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was simply good-natured ribbing."
Is that so.
Consider WMC's teevee ad "Looking for Loopholes," in which an all-but-tearful narrator intones from the following script:
We've heard it before. Judge cites loophole, sides with criminal that threatens our safety. Take Justice Louis Butler. His colleagues called him Loophole Louie. ... A husband poisoned his wife. Butler cites a loophole, almost jeopardizing the prosecution.The poisoning case to which WMC refers is State v. Jensen. The ad is one of two that WMC produced devoted to Justice Butler's opinion in Jensen.
Merriam-Webster defines "loophole" as "a means of escape; esp. an ambiguity or omission that allows one to evade the intent of a law or contract."
Justice Butler was the lone dissenter in Jensen, as against the six Justices in the majority, led by WMC's "traditionalist" avatar, former Justice Jon P. Wilcox. (That's how you "almost jeopardize" a prosecution, apparently.) This is what the majority held:
Today, we explicitly adopt this [forfeiture by wrongdoing] doctrine whereby a defendant is deemed to have lost the right to object on confrontation grounds to the admissibility of out-of-court statements of a declarant whose unavailability the defendant has caused.In this instance, the "loophole" is the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine and the application of that "loophole" is its explicit adoption by the Jensen majority.
From the opening paragraph of Justice Butler's dissent in Jensen:
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him" (emphasis added). Article I, section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution similarly provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to meet the witnesses face to face" (emphasis added). The operative word in each of these constitutional provisions is the word "all." Neither provision creates a homicide exception to the constitutional guarantee of confrontation.Facing precisely the same question arising from another State, the United States Supreme Court agreed with Justice Butler. From the Giles v. California syllabus:
Held: The California Supreme Court’s theory of forfeiture by wrongdoing is not an exception to the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation requirement because it was not an exception established at the founding.The author of the majority opinion in Giles? Conservative standard-bearer Antonin Scalia, joined in full by Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas and Alito.
To be sure, should the man convicted of poisoning his wife, Mark D. Jensen, receive a new trial — which seems likely — it will be thanks to Justice Scalia and his conservative colleagues, and certainly not to Justice Butler's one-man dissent. In other words, Justice Scalia closed a loophole, he didn't discover one.
And the loophole Scalia closed is exactly the one to which Justice Butler objected. Elsewhere a WMC spokesmodel referred to Butler's objection, an objection grounded in the original understanding of the United States Constitution, as "a needless technicality."
Last week WMC issued a brazenly hypocritical press release, accusing its critics of waging "an organized campaign of misinformation." I would go further. WMC's characterization of Justice Butler's dissent in Jensen is beyond misinformation. It's a flat out lie.
July 5, 2008
Julaine Appling wants gays imprisoned
"What are you in for?" "Selling crack outside an elementary school. You?" "Coming home from getting married in San Francisco."
Whether the statutes would find application under the Wisconsin constitution's marriage amendment is an open question and in the unlikely event a prosecutor sought to enforce them, I expect lawyers would be lining up to offer pro bono defense. And winning.
Source.*
See also: "I think we’ve been extremely tolerant in allowing them to live wherever they choose" — Julaine Appling.
* Why can't reporters ever report the statutes they're reporting on? It's Wis. Stat. § 765.04(1) and the penalty is at § 765.30(1).
Julaine Appling, chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Family Council, said the statutes are clear and the law should be enforced.Good luck with that. The statutes Ms. Appling is referring to are meant to discourage bigamy or the marriage of first cousins except where one of the first cousins is a female over the age of 55 or where either first cousin is permanently sterile.
"If it were challenged and the courts decided to basically wink at it, and refused to enforce [sic] the law, we have a problem," she said.
Whether the statutes would find application under the Wisconsin constitution's marriage amendment is an open question and in the unlikely event a prosecutor sought to enforce them, I expect lawyers would be lining up to offer pro bono defense. And winning.
Source.*
See also: "I think we’ve been extremely tolerant in allowing them to live wherever they choose" — Julaine Appling.
* Why can't reporters ever report the statutes they're reporting on? It's Wis. Stat. § 765.04(1) and the penalty is at § 765.30(1).
July 4, 2008
July 3, 2008
A non sequitur of Epic proportions
Epic Systems, the big medical software company building a campus just outside of Verona proper, has laid down the law to its building contractor, J.P. Cullen & Sons.And in offer of proof for this alleged corporate telling?
Epic has told J.P. Cullen that if it wants to keep wetting its beak in a construction project expected to total a half-billion dollars before it is through, it will have to wear, like an Ed Gein mask, Epic’s politics.
Nothing. (The link is to a dictionary of construction terms.)
Behold the balance of David Blaska's baseless drivel. Does he get paid to fabricate rubbish? Or does being a conservative in Madison confer special license to be that much more of an embarrassing dissembler?
Still waiting for somebody — anybody — to make the case for a causal connection between Epic's informal procurement protocol and J.P. Cullen's withdrawal from WMC with something other than pure speculation and unsupported inference ...
GTA: Chicago St.
My friend capper has inaugurated a new blog, Cognitive Dissidence, and for his initial contribution discusses a controversial U.S. Army recruiting station at Summerfest.
The controversy arose over the presence of a computer game, America's Army: Special Forces, where 13-year-old kids could mount a Humvee and spray machine gun fire at full-size virtual human beings.
The exhibit is advertised in Summerfest's official guide as "Experiential marketing, a unique venue for discovering and interacting with brands." And then machine gunning them to death.
There was something of an outcry yesterday and reportedly the Summerfest Army has since substituted "targets" for the human figures as well as restricting entrance to the age of majority (18).
Reliable sources inform me that Milwaukee's medium wave talking orangutan Charlie Sykes spent the better part of two hours in the morning* crying over the objections to the exhibit because, you know, every music festival should include an opportunity for seventh-graders to pretend at killing people with machine guns.
Last year, it was the right-nut wing going appropriately ballistic over an appearance at Summerfest by the hip hop performer Ludacris, which they predicted would instigate a reenactment of Detroit 1967. Needless to say, nothing even remotely of the sort occurred.
I have a better suggestion for the Summerfest Army. Never mind the targets, just reconfigure the life-size humans to resemble bespectacled, hair-helmeted AM radio squawkers running back and forth parroting GOP talking points so we can all get in on the fun.
From whence the protests might emanate then, I wonder.
* And is weeping copiously still. Accolades are being extended to the initial objectors, but I reserve mine for those who can actually stomach listening to that idiot for more than a minute or two.
The controversy arose over the presence of a computer game, America's Army: Special Forces, where 13-year-old kids could mount a Humvee and spray machine gun fire at full-size virtual human beings.
The exhibit is advertised in Summerfest's official guide as "Experiential marketing, a unique venue for discovering and interacting with brands." And then machine gunning them to death.
There was something of an outcry yesterday and reportedly the Summerfest Army has since substituted "targets" for the human figures as well as restricting entrance to the age of majority (18).
Reliable sources inform me that Milwaukee's medium wave talking orangutan Charlie Sykes spent the better part of two hours in the morning* crying over the objections to the exhibit because, you know, every music festival should include an opportunity for seventh-graders to pretend at killing people with machine guns.
Last year, it was the right-nut wing going appropriately ballistic over an appearance at Summerfest by the hip hop performer Ludacris, which they predicted would instigate a reenactment of Detroit 1967. Needless to say, nothing even remotely of the sort occurred.
I have a better suggestion for the Summerfest Army. Never mind the targets, just reconfigure the life-size humans to resemble bespectacled, hair-helmeted AM radio squawkers running back and forth parroting GOP talking points so we can all get in on the fun.
From whence the protests might emanate then, I wonder.
* And is weeping copiously still. Accolades are being extended to the initial objectors, but I reserve mine for those who can actually stomach listening to that idiot for more than a minute or two.
July 2, 2008
The Milwaukee Fed Sox
I keep meaning to toss a kudo or several the way of the Milwaukee Federalist Society, whose weblog here is maintained by Terrence Berres, an occasional commenter at this location and at the Shark's lair with an especially dry and therefore winning sense of humor.
While I likely wouldn't be caught dead at a Federalist Society shindig — not even to pilfer the brownies — Mr. Berres's weblog is a very useful one-stop shopping repository of Wisconsin State court opinions complete with links to relevant commentary and so forth.
I also just noticed the other day that one of Mr. Berres's colleagues, David Ziemer, is a contributor to the Wisconsin Law Journal,* where he produced a good piece about a case called State v. Jensen and its future in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Giles v. California that I've written about a number of times here.
A very highly recommended local blog, and much appreciated.
* Hard copy subscriptions: $500-plus per annum.
While I likely wouldn't be caught dead at a Federalist Society shindig — not even to pilfer the brownies — Mr. Berres's weblog is a very useful one-stop shopping repository of Wisconsin State court opinions complete with links to relevant commentary and so forth.
I also just noticed the other day that one of Mr. Berres's colleagues, David Ziemer, is a contributor to the Wisconsin Law Journal,* where he produced a good piece about a case called State v. Jensen and its future in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Giles v. California that I've written about a number of times here.
A very highly recommended local blog, and much appreciated.
* Hard copy subscriptions: $500-plus per annum.
Six degrees of Catholic bacon (or lard)
Here's another amusing thread courtesy of our friend Dad29, in which he accuses me of "misquoting" a two-paragraph item in the Chicago Tribune the other day.
Apparently he thinks I missed the part where the Archdiocese's spokesmodel described prayers for transgendered human beings as "inimical" to Church teaching. Trouble is, I specifically mentioned that part.
I wondered how come entire Catholic Masses for dogs dressed as babies and clowns might be celebrated, but the Chicago Archdiocese deems it "not possible" to even mention transgendered human beings for prayerful purposes on Church property.
And it's "not possible" because it's "inimical" to Church teaching. Yeah, I got that, and mentioned it. There was no misquoting.
I'm admonished by an apparent Defender of the Faith that, "Any parish that holds those Masses [for dogs dressed as clowns] doesn't understand the teaching of the Church on the sacredness of liturgy. Or much else."
Yet according to the collection of wild-eyed heretics at Catholic.org, there are prayers for not only animals — alive, diseased, and dead — but a variety of inanimate objects, such as bedrooms, cornerstones of buildings, and even bacon:
Why a slab of cured and sulfite-infused pig meat merits prayer but not an actual, living human being who may have happened to have been born with ambiguous genitalia according to God's Divine Plan strikes me as just a bit, well, odd, to say the least.
Maybe the healing properties of lard (or bacon) can cure teh gay?
Apparently he thinks I missed the part where the Archdiocese's spokesmodel described prayers for transgendered human beings as "inimical" to Church teaching. Trouble is, I specifically mentioned that part.
I wondered how come entire Catholic Masses for dogs dressed as babies and clowns might be celebrated, but the Chicago Archdiocese deems it "not possible" to even mention transgendered human beings for prayerful purposes on Church property.
And it's "not possible" because it's "inimical" to Church teaching. Yeah, I got that, and mentioned it. There was no misquoting.
I'm admonished by an apparent Defender of the Faith that, "Any parish that holds those Masses [for dogs dressed as clowns] doesn't understand the teaching of the Church on the sacredness of liturgy. Or much else."
Yet according to the collection of wild-eyed heretics at Catholic.org, there are prayers for not only animals — alive, diseased, and dead — but a variety of inanimate objects, such as bedrooms, cornerstones of buildings, and even bacon:
Bless, O Lord, this lard (or bacon), that it may be an effective remedy for the human race, and grant that through the invocation of Thy holy name all those who eat of it may obtain health of body and protection of their souls. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.So, Catholics may pray for bacon (or lard) but not for transgendered human beings. Bacon! Which is something that not even Jesus as an adherent to Jewish dietary proscriptions would have eaten.
Why a slab of cured and sulfite-infused pig meat merits prayer but not an actual, living human being who may have happened to have been born with ambiguous genitalia according to God's Divine Plan strikes me as just a bit, well, odd, to say the least.
Maybe the healing properties of lard (or bacon) can cure teh gay?
July 1, 2008
Happy Canada Day
WMC apologist quote of the week
Early on in the most recent Supreme Court race, WMC put Justice Louis Butler in its sights simply because he had demonstrated a taste for judicial activism, particularly aimed at the business liability [sic].Which is why WMC's ad campaign concentrated on — and falsely portrayed, at the expense of the U.S. Constitution by distorting its system of justice — Butler's record in adjudicating criminal appeals.
Judith Faulkner owes success to WMC.
So, let's see. You deliberately distort a respected judge's record in criminal cases when you don't care for his dispositions in civil ones, and one day Wisconsin is America's tax hell and its "Alabama North" and the next it's the best environment for companies like Epic Systems to thrive in. I guess you have to get pretty deep down in the free market think tank to come up with stuff like that, thus the attendant confusion and memory loss is understandable.
Stevens Derangement Syndrome*
I often get a huge kick out of our favorite Brookfield curmudgeon Dad29, but I'm concerned he's losing his grip on reality as we know it here (not that it was anything except tenuous to begin with).
* By its acronym, this common conservative affliction is interchangeable with "Souter Derangement Syndrome," or, to opposite symptom and effect, "Scalia Derangement Syndrome."
* By its acronym, this common conservative affliction is interchangeable with "Souter Derangement Syndrome," or, to opposite symptom and effect, "Scalia Derangement Syndrome."
June 30, 2008
Lawyer eschews double negative
From Chief Justice John Roberts's dissenting opinion in Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., decided June 23:
Nice try. Best stick to the light operetta, C.J.
The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing. "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Bob Dylan, Like A Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose.
Nice try. Best stick to the light operetta, C.J.
Kazakhstan is not in Russia
But who cares when you're more interested in running video footage of a bloodied, suicided corpse laying on a Manhattan street accompanied by breathless "legal" speculation,* eh Geraldo?
* Several orders of magnitude more offensive than any corpse.
* Several orders of magnitude more offensive than any corpse.
Judith Faulkner, corporate heroine
Epic has not run a press release for 18 years. In fact, the only advertising the company has sponsored was a billboard with the slogan, "Marketing Sucks ... Epic Systems."The notoriously publicity-averse Judith R. Faulkner made very positive news last week with her principled stand against a business association, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, and its opprobrious conduct during last winter's State election campaign.
Ms. Faulkner is a remarkable entrepreneur. She founded Epic Systems, a developer of healthcare information software, in 1979 with $6,000 and last year its sales topped $500 million. She remains in firm control of the privately held operation, which employs more than 3,000 and is looking for many more.
Judith Faulkner, much like a lot of us, didn't take kindly to the numerous and varied deceits that WMC produced attacking a sitting Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Louis Butler.
Last Wednesday, Epic published a statement referring to the campaign as a "travesty of ethics" and suggesting that WMC was largely responsible.
On Friday, Epic further clarified, “We believe that what we tolerate is what we stand for, and as corporate citizens, we stand for the preservation of the foundation of the judicial system.”
To that end Epic will "try to work only with vendors that do not support WMC with its current management."
Good for Judith Faulkner, and good for Epic Systems.
Epic management said that they could not support WMC's role in the Supreme Court race, which saw WMC pour approximately $1.8 million dollars into an ad campaign on behalf of Judge Michael Gableman.Whether that money was spent on behalf of Gableman or purely on egregiously deceitful attacks against Justice Butler is a close question.
WMC barely mentioned Gableman, likely because there was little to say on behalf of him to begin with, and especially while Gableman's own campaign descended to previously untrolled depths of patently false and disgraceful innuendo, a campaign Gableman actually claimed to have been proud of.
A University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of political science hints darkly at illegal activity:
Epic's threat not to work with another company based on an election campaign appears to be the first of its kind nationwide, said Howard Schweber.Why? Epic Systems isn't colluding with its competitors to freeze out or favor a vendor. It's acting independently. Vendor selection and purchasing policy isn't limited to commercial considerations of price and delivery.
"We should be uncomfortable when private businesses have enough power to coerce businesses or other organizations to change their political views or affiliations or keep them secret," Schweber said.
In fact Epic may only injure its own bottom line if avoiding WMC-affiliated suppliers results in higher priced or longer delivery items. A WMC spokesguy is defiant, or something, saying he won't be "intimidated." Bully for him.
Placing principle above lucre is nothing to be sneered at, especially in this case, where the principle at issue is central to the continuing success of the republic: the integrity of the courts.
In addition to the irony of the apparently unwitting reference to coercive corporate power — the abuse of which is Judith Faulkner's concern, not partisan politics — Prof. Schweber misses the point.
Epic's approach has nothing to do with partisan views or affiliations, it has to do with ethics, plain and simple. WMC waged a mendacious campaign of deliberate misinformation against a State Supreme Court Justice. Epic would prefer at the least not to mingle its lucre with that which is trading in sleaze.
Just as Epic can choose not to cut purchase orders to suppliers that engage in shady business practices so can it rebuff those connected to WMC's unseemly tactics. Selecting against WMC-affiliated suppliers is little different than purchasing only recycled toilet paper or only company bowling team shirts not manufactured in Bangladesh sweatshops.
It seems to me Epic's policy is laudable. Corporations may choose to express civic responsibility in a variety of ways, and this is one of them, based on a particularly admirable principle.
And WMC, having spent nearly $2 million on effectively attempted character assassination, certainly understands the coercive — and corrosive — power of lucre. If some WMC-affiliate suffers financially as a result of Epic's policy somehow, it will be a small price to pay for the sins committed earlier this year and beyond. Free market, the invisible hand and all that, coming back to slap you.
Prof. Schweber's discomfort would be far more accurately directed at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and not Epic Systems.
eta: Without providing a lick of evidence for either assertion and indeed in the face of evidence suggesting otherwise, Rick Esenberg describes Epic's statement as a "threat" and one of Epic's building contractors' withdrawal from WMC as a "submission" to that "threat."
But he does admit he only "imagines" it.
June 29, 2008
No prayer for you
It's "not possible" to mention lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered humans as the object of prayers on church property, sez the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis.
Not possible? To simply say those words is "really inimical to the teachings of the Catholic church." Which themselves are really inimical to the teachings of Jesus, apparently.
On the other hand:
Not possible? To simply say those words is "really inimical to the teachings of the Catholic church." Which themselves are really inimical to the teachings of Jesus, apparently.
On the other hand:
Hundreds of dogs, many dressed as babies or clowns, were taken to celebrate mass in this Nicaraguan town on Sunday, an annual ritual where the owners pray for their pets to be cured or avoid falling ill.Dogs dressed as clowns entitled to entire Mass.
Not the logical successor to Randy Travis
Eric Englund is his name
h/t the Recess Supervisor.
See also: Big Bad John Cornyn
Doin' the Lord's Work and enjoyin' a Good Brew.
The synth line in the intro has a suspiciously Middle Eastern quality.
h/t the Recess Supervisor.
See also: Big Bad John Cornyn
Doin' the Lord's Work and enjoyin' a Good Brew.
The synth line in the intro has a suspiciously Middle Eastern quality.
June 28, 2008
Best of the Right-Wing Reactionaries
It just wouldn't be Saturday night without yet another howler courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs."
This week's "best blogger" claims that D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court's big gun case, was decided "5-4 in favor of the individual right to bear arms."
One wonders how a best blogger could make such a rookie mistake, since the four dissenting Justices also agreed that
In hopes of overcoming his initial gaffe, the best blogger continues:
No self-respecting, self-described political blogger would ever rely on the Associated Press for the substance of court opinions, so is it any wonder that a newspaper editor would find professional and maybe even personal vindication that some clown in the "new media" had so relied, and wished to congratulate him on suitably irrational grounds. These days, the opinion appears online before the news report, so there's not even any need to rely on the latter.
Not only that, but despite the AP editor's period within the quotation marks, it's only half a sentence, which is one of the myriad reasons for not relying on Associated Press reports of court opinions. Here, the AP actually cut an entire sentence, and thereby its meaning, in half. That's bad enough, but to see a blogger enshrined — by newspaper editors, no less — to "Wisconsin Best" status simply for mindlessly duplicating deliberately negligent journalism and attaching an allegedly droll yet ultimately irrelevant one-line quip is ludicrous.
The choice to which Justice Stevens refers is not whether elected officials may regulate civilian use of arms — they certainly may — but whether the Framers meant to leave it to the courts to define the policy contours of the contemplated regulations. Even the majority recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and is therefore subject to some regulation.
Normally, conservatives would side with Justice Stevens's admonishment of the majority for interfering unwarrantedly in the political process, but apparently this principle may itself be quickly abandoned for expedient political purposes. Or even just dimwitted ones.
Justice Stevens offers as illustration in a footnote a comparison between the Court's active involvement in federal election districting cases, another area one might imagine to be the exclusive preserve of the political branches of federal government. But whereas the political branches were "manifestly unable" to solve the districting problem, "no one has suggested that the political process is not working exactly as it should in mediating the debate between the advocates and opponents of gun control."
Indeed, Heller was entirely a controversy of judicial manufacture in the first place. The Cato Institute hand selected six potential plaintiffs and threw them into federal court. One, Richard Heller, stuck. And only on appeal, at that, having been initially dismissed along with the other five for failing to successfully argue standing.
But ultimately, and most importantly, Justice Stevens at the conclusion of his dissent is expressly addressing two specific and related claims alleged by the majority, that
These are sentiments occasionally guaranteed to warm the so-called judicial conservative's heart. In fact they are the precise lines of argument conservatives adopt to criticize judicial results they don't personally care for, whether they understand — or have even read — the decisions themselves. All of which is simply more evidence that accusations of "judicial activism" emanating from political conservatives are essentially a hollow partisan farce.
Seriously, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, this is hardly the best Wisconsin bloggers have to offer. At least spend five minutes investigating the context of what you're memorializing.
This week's "best blogger" claims that D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court's big gun case, was decided "5-4 in favor of the individual right to bear arms."
One wonders how a best blogger could make such a rookie mistake, since the four dissenting Justices also agreed that
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.In fact that is the opening paragraph of the lead dissent and is reiterated even more clearly in Justice Breyer's dissent:
The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.So, first of all, collective vs. individual right was not at issue and secondly, had it been, the result was 9-0. And even then, only within federal jurisdiction. And then only in your home.
In hopes of overcoming his initial gaffe, the best blogger continues:
My favorite quote so far:Nope, just more gaffes. And that is the entire "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" blog entry, by the way.
"In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority 'would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.'"
Except, of course, the part where they passed the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights.
No self-respecting, self-described political blogger would ever rely on the Associated Press for the substance of court opinions, so is it any wonder that a newspaper editor would find professional and maybe even personal vindication that some clown in the "new media" had so relied, and wished to congratulate him on suitably irrational grounds. These days, the opinion appears online before the news report, so there's not even any need to rely on the latter.
Not only that, but despite the AP editor's period within the quotation marks, it's only half a sentence, which is one of the myriad reasons for not relying on Associated Press reports of court opinions. Here, the AP actually cut an entire sentence, and thereby its meaning, in half. That's bad enough, but to see a blogger enshrined — by newspaper editors, no less — to "Wisconsin Best" status simply for mindlessly duplicating deliberately negligent journalism and attaching an allegedly droll yet ultimately irrelevant one-line quip is ludicrous.
The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.As it turns out, Justice Stevens was talking about something quite different than Wisconsin's best blogger understands. And, like many conservatives, he seeks to ignore what the Court calls the Second Amendment's prefatory clause, the one that refers to a well regulated militia, never mind even the majority's acknowledgment that militia use of arms is different than civilian use, whereas the Second Amendment describes only regulation of the militia.
The choice to which Justice Stevens refers is not whether elected officials may regulate civilian use of arms — they certainly may — but whether the Framers meant to leave it to the courts to define the policy contours of the contemplated regulations. Even the majority recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and is therefore subject to some regulation.
Normally, conservatives would side with Justice Stevens's admonishment of the majority for interfering unwarrantedly in the political process, but apparently this principle may itself be quickly abandoned for expedient political purposes. Or even just dimwitted ones.
Justice Stevens offers as illustration in a footnote a comparison between the Court's active involvement in federal election districting cases, another area one might imagine to be the exclusive preserve of the political branches of federal government. But whereas the political branches were "manifestly unable" to solve the districting problem, "no one has suggested that the political process is not working exactly as it should in mediating the debate between the advocates and opponents of gun control."
Indeed, Heller was entirely a controversy of judicial manufacture in the first place. The Cato Institute hand selected six potential plaintiffs and threw them into federal court. One, Richard Heller, stuck. And only on appeal, at that, having been initially dismissed along with the other five for failing to successfully argue standing.
But ultimately, and most importantly, Justice Stevens at the conclusion of his dissent is expressly addressing two specific and related claims alleged by the majority, that
“the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” is “elevate[d] above all other interests” by the Second Amendment.and that
a [legislative] policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.”To be sure, Stevens isn't talking about whether the individual right to keep and bear arms is "off the table," he is criticizing the majority for defining the contours of acceptable legislative policy, and declaring as if by fiat the limits of those contours, despite no indication of the Court's constitutional power to make such determinations.
These are sentiments occasionally guaranteed to warm the so-called judicial conservative's heart. In fact they are the precise lines of argument conservatives adopt to criticize judicial results they don't personally care for, whether they understand — or have even read — the decisions themselves. All of which is simply more evidence that accusations of "judicial activism" emanating from political conservatives are essentially a hollow partisan farce.
Seriously, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, this is hardly the best Wisconsin bloggers have to offer. At least spend five minutes investigating the context of what you're memorializing.
Peter Wehner reads this blog
If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, James Dobson didn't. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince. — Peter WehnerExcept for the wincing part; James Dobson doesn't make me wince so much as wonder why anybody takes him seriously.
June 25, 2008
Scalia & Co. affirm Louis Butler
Hot off the press:
Mark D. Jensen's defense motions should be hitting the Kenosha County clerk of courts' counter right about ... now.
It wasn't hard to predict.* Congratulations to Justice Butler on an impressive and impressively affirmed exercise in constitutional law.
* Maybe for some.
We decline to approve an exception to the Confrontation Clause unheard of at the time of the founding or for 200Giles v. California (.pdf; 58 pgs.).
years thereafter.
Mark D. Jensen's defense motions should be hitting the Kenosha County clerk of courts' counter right about ... now.
It wasn't hard to predict.* Congratulations to Justice Butler on an impressive and impressively affirmed exercise in constitutional law.
* Maybe for some.
Why is James Dobson famous?
James Dobson is "making stuff up," says Barack Obama.Not that that's news, of course, since for people like Dobson, making stuff up is a base function of the medulla oblongata. As Obama reportedly put it, "Somebody would be pretty hard-pressed to make that argument" — that he was distorting the Bible.
"Argument" is a generous courtesy on Obama's part, since Dobson didn't "argue" so much as whine noisily. I know this because the national press deems his wailings and gnashings practically lead-in material on the evening news.
Why this is is an interesting question on its own. In a more perfect world, Dobson would be wearing a sandwich board and ringing a bell on a street corner somewhere. People would pass him by, maybe give him a dollar or a cigarette or a half a bagel, but otherwise ignore his fevered gesticulations. He might even get arrested.
But Dobson apparently has "influence" over a considerable number of people including — it is rumored — the ear of the current president himself and all that entails.
Last evening CNN devoted an extended segment to Dobson's unwittingly doltish performance during which, it must be gratefully acknowledged, the laughably inept Tony Perkins was definitively flogged by Al Sharpton, Roland Martin, and Anderson Cooper in turn (even though both Perkins and Sharpton shared a round of guffaws about Cooper, who is gay, burning in Hell. Which would be funny if not for Perkins and Sharpton actually believing it).
And Perkins needed to start making more stuff up when he was shown portions of the speech featuring Obama criticizing hardliner secularists and acknowledging not only the existence of Judeo-Christian moral principles in the American system of law, but also the fact that many are appropriately enforceable. Perkins then tried to make it about Obama's personal faith, which it wasn't at all.
Dobson, who is incompetent even as a conservative radio host, a position created for incompetents, commits the same clear error.
It's obvious why Dobson dug up Obama's 2006 speech to a Christian group. Because he doesn't want his own little farce exposed. And because of Obama's emerging strategy to woo some of the Christian "values voters" over and from whom Dobson demands exclusive preserve, allegiance and, ultimately, control.
Dobson hasn't a clue what Obama was talking about and when Dobson weeps about being prevented from pushing "partial birth abortion" legislation he's flatly lying. He can push it wherever he likes.
Obama's speech was informed by political theory, not aversion to "orthodox Christian" dogma, as Tony Perkins calls his own personal, subjective version of objective morality.
What Obama is saying is that there are a number of approaches a rational political society may take in order to arrange a widely applicable system of ethics. Because it's impossible for everyone to agree on everything, Obama is initiating a dialogue to determine whether there are some things that almost everyone agrees are destructive to the polity's ethic, theft of property or child sexual assault for example.
When more subtle ethical questions arise, religion presents itself into the calculus and because religion wouldn't be religion without dogma, Dobson's dogma ultimately faces off against one of the other televangelists' dogmas.
The Bible that James Dobson is whacking is a very complicated assembly of disparate and highly derivative texts whose influence in many, many ways shaped Western civilization itself, not to mention civilizations elsewhere, still in existence or otherwise.
It accreted over centuries and various bits and pieces of it have been adhered to — or not — by hundreds of separate and distinct societies over a few thousand years.
Obama is not saying that only his interpretation of the Bible is inherently correct; it's Dobson and his ilk that are making that baseless insistence. Obama is simply pointing out that sectarian dogmatism in the false guise of absolute morality is a stumbling block to constructing the political ethic, by definition.
Dobson needs to understand that he's not going to convert all the people of America to his particular flavor of so-called Christianity. And obviously he can continue to insist on his own special divine insight.
The point is, if you are going to use the Bible as a source of ethical guidance, that's perfectly appropriate. Even I would use it. Selectively, of course, as I'm not about to give up calamari or cotton/rayon blends.
And it's also perfectly appropriate to attempt to codify that Biblical guidance in legislation and turn its enforcement over to the D.A.
But you have to support it with some argument other than, "Because I speak personally on behalf of the Almighty True God and you must Obey." Legislation formulated on such grounds are the mustard seeds of theocracy, a form of polity favored by America's enemies.
Obama's speech is simply a reminder of a few glaringly obvious historical facts of which Dobson evidently insists on remaining ignorant, which proves Obama's point precisely, hence the self-defeating, humiliatingly ironic quality of Dobson's reaction.
Rational people probably need to start ignoring anachronistic cranks like Dobson and Hagee and Swaggart and the rest or else consign them back to their bells and their sandwich boards.
While I'm suspicious of "leaders" on general principle — Al Gore's repeated invocation of the term to describe Obama during his endorsement was downright Orwellian creepy — Obama is demonstrating leadership by laying out the terms of a national discussion, as he did for the Christian group in 2006.
And it's a welcome initiative, given religious dogmatism's often fractious and deleterious effects in this society, something even the Framers of the Constitution were well acquainted with.
Incidentally, Dobson's most recent fit of the vapors did serve at least one useful purpose, apart from their usual entertainment value. It unearthed a speech of Obama's comparing the admonitions of the New Testament with the policies of the Department of Defense.
It's not something you hear from a candidate for the U.S. presidency very often and it's refreshing as hell. That sort of talk is guaranteed to inflame the Dobsonian followers of the Prince of Peace but politically moderate Christians are guaranteed to respond well.
And if they are disillusioned Republicans or otherwise undecided, then hopefully Dobson's hysterics cement the deal for Obama.
June 24, 2008
Book of Armani 4:1-12
This deserves its own post.
h/t the mysterious scribe Heraldblog, whose portfolio includes a brief stint working for homeschooled copy editors.
h/t the mysterious scribe Heraldblog, whose portfolio includes a brief stint working for homeschooled copy editors.
On the local yokels
Some classic Plaisted here.
What I find amazing is how anybody in his right mind* could assert matter of factly and presumably with a straight face that "about 2,500 people rioted."
Although, I reckon even on a clear day it's tough to see all the way to 12th and Vliet from a basement in West Bend. Interesting!
Even better, though, is a contributor to the comments thread deriding Plaisted for raising issues of "racism," and then declaring, "Blacks en masse are always a recipe for trouble."
And I did learn that people who are a bit on the heavy side are not allowed to be hungry or get their hair done.
Good times.
* I take that back. It's precisely a "right mind" that would deliberately fabricate such an outlandish distortion. I also take back finding it amazing. I find it depressing.
What I find amazing is how anybody in his right mind* could assert matter of factly and presumably with a straight face that "about 2,500 people rioted."
Although, I reckon even on a clear day it's tough to see all the way to 12th and Vliet from a basement in West Bend. Interesting!
Even better, though, is a contributor to the comments thread deriding Plaisted for raising issues of "racism," and then declaring, "Blacks en masse are always a recipe for trouble."
And I did learn that people who are a bit on the heavy side are not allowed to be hungry or get their hair done.
Good times.
* I take that back. It's precisely a "right mind" that would deliberately fabricate such an outlandish distortion. I also take back finding it amazing. I find it depressing.
Women wearing pants
A thoughtful essay from the folks at Conservapedia:
The woman who pioneered women wearing pants was the actress Katharine Hepburn. She became rich and famous but never experienced a happy marriage and never knew the joy of having children. Her philosophy of life of being unfeminine resulted in her not fulfilling her purpose of life. We reap what we sow. There are consequences for actions. Women wearing pants is cross-dressing. It should be looked down on as much as men wearing dresses. The social experiment of feminism to destroy any sense of difference between male and female in the twentieth century has resulted in women wearing military camouflage fatigue pants and boots. The Bible says cross-dressing is an "abomination of God."
And yes, that's the whole essay.
h/t Submitted to a Candid World.
(Richard Lenski's second reply to Andy Schlafly is priceless.)
The woman who pioneered women wearing pants was the actress Katharine Hepburn. She became rich and famous but never experienced a happy marriage and never knew the joy of having children. Her philosophy of life of being unfeminine resulted in her not fulfilling her purpose of life. We reap what we sow. There are consequences for actions. Women wearing pants is cross-dressing. It should be looked down on as much as men wearing dresses. The social experiment of feminism to destroy any sense of difference between male and female in the twentieth century has resulted in women wearing military camouflage fatigue pants and boots. The Bible says cross-dressing is an "abomination of God."And yes, that's the whole essay.
h/t Submitted to a Candid World.
(Richard Lenski's second reply to Andy Schlafly is priceless.)
Dead-on deadpannery
Republican operatives, in their drive to politicize court contests, may want to target [Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson for being too independent and too committed to the rule of law as opposed to the service of special interests.Touché.
Presidency hinges on correct exegesis
James Dobson* is always good for a laugh.
Mind you, Obama is asking for it. Full points on the shellfish/abomination number, though.
* Focus On Your Own Effin' Family.
Mind you, Obama is asking for it. Full points on the shellfish/abomination number, though.
* Focus On Your Own Effin' Family.
Legitimizing pseudoscience in the NYT
In lieu of ever getting back to my friend Thomas Joseph on the larger question of famed blogger PZ Myers' contributions to the so-called culture wars, I'm able to note in the meantime that Prof. Myers' criticism of the New York Times here is very much misplaced.
Or, more to the point, his reasons are sound, but the Times' item about Philadelphia's Darwin Year commemorations is not the most appropriate place to proffer them. Myers complains that where only science is at issue, reporters needn't solicit the observations of some random creationist fruitcake, in this case, the high wanking Antipodean jackanapes Ken Ham of "Creation Museum" fame.
Myers is certainly correct about that, and the example he gives of Jerry Coyne's inquiry of the NYT's science editor is much more suited to its object, which was an otherwise straight news report on a fossil discovery.
For the Times to ask the notorious Duane Gish what he thought of Tiktallik is irresponsible. Gish is a young earth creationist so adept at comically dissembling evasion he even has his own "debating" move named after him: the Gish Gallop. If credibility may be expressed in negative numbers, Gish's is in the triple digits.
I also agree with Myers that the Times science editor's reply to Prof. Coyne was unsatisfying. Because when it comes to reporting science, creationists like Gish and Ken Ham are the functional equivalents of mentally unbalanced panhandlers muttering gibberish on street corners.
That the Times sees fit to memorialize the alleged insights of these deliberate ignoramuses confers a patina of legitimacy where absolutely none is warranted.
And that effect is compounded when their statements are placed alongside those of professional credentialed scientists in the interest of supposedly presenting "both sides" to the story. Sometimes, there aren't "both sides" to a story and the goal of trying to invent one of them is not well served by soliciting the opinion of a thoroughly discredited crankpot who harbors borderline psychotic delusions.
As a general press criticism, that much is fair. Newspapers do assume some measure of responsibility simply by presenting themselves as newspapers.
But as for the Philadelphia Darwin exhibits, it was their own spokeswoman who opened the door:
Thus the question is whether Ms. Monge should have adopted the defensive pose, and not whether Ken Ham should be invited to disgorge yet more absurdist effluvia.
If the foregoing implied statistics from polls are any indication, proponents of sound science will likely find them alarming. I have little doubt that PZ Myers would — and does — and so Ms. Monge's declaration of intent is at least well intentioned.
What's troubling to me about the Times piece is that evolution is depicted as an "alternative" to the "biblical account," as if the latter was the reigning scientific paradigm, which it hasn't been for several centuries, if it ever was.
But if a majority of Americans really do believe that about the "biblical account" and whereas sound, valid science is merely an "alternative" to ancient Mesopotamian folktales, then I submit we have bigger problems than the occasional New York Times reporter offering an undeserved megaphone to a jumped up street preacher.
Or, more to the point, his reasons are sound, but the Times' item about Philadelphia's Darwin Year commemorations is not the most appropriate place to proffer them. Myers complains that where only science is at issue, reporters needn't solicit the observations of some random creationist fruitcake, in this case, the high wanking Antipodean jackanapes Ken Ham of "Creation Museum" fame.
Myers is certainly correct about that, and the example he gives of Jerry Coyne's inquiry of the NYT's science editor is much more suited to its object, which was an otherwise straight news report on a fossil discovery.
For the Times to ask the notorious Duane Gish what he thought of Tiktallik is irresponsible. Gish is a young earth creationist so adept at comically dissembling evasion he even has his own "debating" move named after him: the Gish Gallop. If credibility may be expressed in negative numbers, Gish's is in the triple digits.
I also agree with Myers that the Times science editor's reply to Prof. Coyne was unsatisfying. Because when it comes to reporting science, creationists like Gish and Ken Ham are the functional equivalents of mentally unbalanced panhandlers muttering gibberish on street corners.
That the Times sees fit to memorialize the alleged insights of these deliberate ignoramuses confers a patina of legitimacy where absolutely none is warranted.
And that effect is compounded when their statements are placed alongside those of professional credentialed scientists in the interest of supposedly presenting "both sides" to the story. Sometimes, there aren't "both sides" to a story and the goal of trying to invent one of them is not well served by soliciting the opinion of a thoroughly discredited crankpot who harbors borderline psychotic delusions.
As a general press criticism, that much is fair. Newspapers do assume some measure of responsibility simply by presenting themselves as newspapers.
But as for the Philadelphia Darwin exhibits, it was their own spokeswoman who opened the door:
The intent of the citywide event, said Janet M. Monge, one of the organizers, is to increase public understanding of evolution and science in general at a time when polls show that a majority of Americans believe God created man in his present form and that the number of people who accept the evolutionary model of human origins is declining.Enter Ken Ham necessarily who, despite his undeniable grasping idiocy, is the chief minister of the said "museum."
She said the Philadelphia events were also intended to encourage people to consider the evolutionary alternative to the biblical account of the origins of man, as represented by the new Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., a $35 million institution that has attracted more than 400,000 visitors since it opened in May 2007.
Thus the question is whether Ms. Monge should have adopted the defensive pose, and not whether Ken Ham should be invited to disgorge yet more absurdist effluvia.
If the foregoing implied statistics from polls are any indication, proponents of sound science will likely find them alarming. I have little doubt that PZ Myers would — and does — and so Ms. Monge's declaration of intent is at least well intentioned.
What's troubling to me about the Times piece is that evolution is depicted as an "alternative" to the "biblical account," as if the latter was the reigning scientific paradigm, which it hasn't been for several centuries, if it ever was.
But if a majority of Americans really do believe that about the "biblical account" and whereas sound, valid science is merely an "alternative" to ancient Mesopotamian folktales, then I submit we have bigger problems than the occasional New York Times reporter offering an undeserved megaphone to a jumped up street preacher.
June 23, 2008
Scalia to come out guns a-blazin'
According to SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein, who hazards that Justice Antonin Scalia will be the author of the U.S. Supreme Court's much anticipated Second Amendment ruling, D.C. v. Heller.
Sheriff Scalia is expected to come barreling through the swingin' doors this week, with Deputy Anthony Kennedy riding shotgun.
Keep an eye on the dissent(s) to see who blames Scalia for "almost certainly caus[ing] more Americans to be killed."
Sheriff Scalia is expected to come barreling through the swingin' doors this week, with Deputy Anthony Kennedy riding shotgun.
Keep an eye on the dissent(s) to see who blames Scalia for "almost certainly caus[ing] more Americans to be killed."
Jeff Beck
Because sometimes people forget what a great guitarist is
Jeff Beck, who turns 64 tomorrow.
Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Blue Wind
(Since for some reason user CloudFROST doesn't tell you, that's Fernando Saunders on bass.)
Jeff Beck, who turns 64 tomorrow.
Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Blue Wind
(Since for some reason user CloudFROST doesn't tell you, that's Fernando Saunders on bass.)
Evil Atheist Cabal expels 20% of members
Seventy percent of the [religiously] unaffiliated said they believed in God, including one of every five people who identified themselves as atheist.What the.
In the lapse of the gods
Milwaukee's Catholics are abandoning the Mass in droves, reports the Journal-Sentinel's Tom Heinen, who covers the religion beat.
Only 24% of the Archdiocese's 680,000 registered Catholics performed the mandated series of deep knee bends and abracadabras last season, according to its Archstatistics.
The Quesosphere's in-house papal bullshitter Dad29 tries to gin the figure up to 30% but finds even that less than inspiring.
The question is, where are they going instead?
If it occurred to them that they can demonstrate to their neighbors the old "peace be with you" routine sans the medieval death cult rituals, then I say that's a step in the right direction, maybe even an inspiring one.
But if they're opting instead for one of the continually splintering Protestant rackets, as Archbaptist Al Mohler gleefully suggests, then, not much of an improvement.*
* That's a joke, as Al Mohler is a poor substitute for a Jesuit.
Only 24% of the Archdiocese's 680,000 registered Catholics performed the mandated series of deep knee bends and abracadabras last season, according to its Archstatistics.
The Quesosphere's in-house papal bullshitter Dad29 tries to gin the figure up to 30% but finds even that less than inspiring.
The question is, where are they going instead?
If it occurred to them that they can demonstrate to their neighbors the old "peace be with you" routine sans the medieval death cult rituals, then I say that's a step in the right direction, maybe even an inspiring one.
But if they're opting instead for one of the continually splintering Protestant rackets, as Archbaptist Al Mohler gleefully suggests, then, not much of an improvement.*
* That's a joke, as Al Mohler is a poor substitute for a Jesuit.
George Carlin in Milwaukee
In the Bullshit Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.Sun worshipper.
Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man — living in the sky — who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you.
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow ... just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!
Tonight's forecast, dark.
June 22, 2008
Certifiable, not certified
Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution.That's not the clearest sentence right there. What the reporter meant to say is that John Freshwater "argued" against evolution by attempting to point at the unreliability of carbon dating.
But, that's true enough. Radiocarbon dating is useful only to determine the age of organic materials within the last few thousand years so it is an unreliable method of attacking evolution, which has been going on for much longer than the half life of carbon-14.
Of course that doesn't stop creationist nuts from using it anyways.
Here's the worst bit: science is all this guy knows:
A former superintendent said he tried to find another position for Freshwater but couldn't because he was certified only in science [sic].Much more.
Coach Dave "Teach the Controversy" Daubenmire sez:
Minutemen United are individuals committed to furthering the cause of Christ through non-violent means.Thanks for clearing that up, Coach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
