1. How come, when they open up a new line at the grocery store, the people who have been waiting the least amount of time are the first ones to go through?
2. Why is the Air Force pushing people who don't want to leave the flying community out the door as part of "force shaping," but they won't let me change jobs and I'd actually like to?
3. Why don't they sell bagged salad in smaller packages, like single serving size? As soon as I open the bag the salad starts to rot; at best I can eat salad for two days, but I always throw a third of the bag away.
12 May 2005
11 May 2005
People who are stupid
A group has produced a study of which Congressmen are most deeply in Tom Delay's pocket. Unsurprisingly, Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida, the former state House speaker who threatened to send the 2001 redistricting plan to a judge unless the state senate agreed to create a new house district just for him, ranks number one on this list. Feeney was just one in a long list of brain-dead demagogic Florida state house speakers that began with John Thrasher in 1999 and has continued unabated until Allen Bense took over this year.
The Orlando Sentinel has an article about it today. The following quote from the article is telling:
"From the way I reckon, Tom [DeLay] is right 97.5 percent of the time, and I vote with him whenever he's right," said Feeney, an Oviedo Republican with aspirations to climb in the House GOP leadership. "Bottom line is, I'm a big Tom DeLay supporter."
Aside from being pathetically craven, this remark also fails to note the fact that Feeney received significant funding from DeLay's PAC (despite never having a tough race) and gave quite a lot of money to DeLay's legal defense fund (actually it's a criminal defense fund; we should call things what they are). I guess Tom would prefer we not think about that.
Feeney is a jackass.
Right next door to Feeney's district, Rep. Dave Weldon ranked 4th on the list. That's 4th out of 435 Congressmen. Central Florida, in other words, is deep into DeLay's pocket. Weldon had an even more intelligent remark when confronted with his slavish devotion to the human well of feces that is Tom Delay:
"Once again, we see billionaire George Soros skirting McCain-Feingold campaign laws and pumping tens of millions of dollars to hire former Democrat staffers to run Democrat front groups parading as unbiased watchdog groups who declare to all who will listen that Tom DeLay is, heaven forbid, a conservative!" Weldon said.
Um... if you go to the web site and look at the rankings, you'll note that nowhere on the site is there a discussion of DeLay's politics. In fact, the site doesn't even state DeLay's political party. It simply says that DeLay is "scandal-plagued," notes that he has been a "sugar-daddy" to many people in Congress, and follows from there that average Americans might want to know how close are the ties between this unethical asspuddle and their own little junior asspuddles. Weldon, then, is assuming that any website that details a person's ethical lapses ipso facto implies that said ethically challenged person is a conservative. Thus all ethically challenged people are conservative. Way to go, Dave!
The Orlando Sentinel has an article about it today. The following quote from the article is telling:
"From the way I reckon, Tom [DeLay] is right 97.5 percent of the time, and I vote with him whenever he's right," said Feeney, an Oviedo Republican with aspirations to climb in the House GOP leadership. "Bottom line is, I'm a big Tom DeLay supporter."
Aside from being pathetically craven, this remark also fails to note the fact that Feeney received significant funding from DeLay's PAC (despite never having a tough race) and gave quite a lot of money to DeLay's legal defense fund (actually it's a criminal defense fund; we should call things what they are). I guess Tom would prefer we not think about that.
Feeney is a jackass.
Right next door to Feeney's district, Rep. Dave Weldon ranked 4th on the list. That's 4th out of 435 Congressmen. Central Florida, in other words, is deep into DeLay's pocket. Weldon had an even more intelligent remark when confronted with his slavish devotion to the human well of feces that is Tom Delay:
"Once again, we see billionaire George Soros skirting McCain-Feingold campaign laws and pumping tens of millions of dollars to hire former Democrat staffers to run Democrat front groups parading as unbiased watchdog groups who declare to all who will listen that Tom DeLay is, heaven forbid, a conservative!" Weldon said.
Um... if you go to the web site and look at the rankings, you'll note that nowhere on the site is there a discussion of DeLay's politics. In fact, the site doesn't even state DeLay's political party. It simply says that DeLay is "scandal-plagued," notes that he has been a "sugar-daddy" to many people in Congress, and follows from there that average Americans might want to know how close are the ties between this unethical asspuddle and their own little junior asspuddles. Weldon, then, is assuming that any website that details a person's ethical lapses ipso facto implies that said ethically challenged person is a conservative. Thus all ethically challenged people are conservative. Way to go, Dave!
09 May 2005
The Solomon Amendment case
I’m in the military. I’m trying to go to law school. So this whole Solomon Amendment case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear during the next term is of interest to me. Here’s an article about it from the Durham Herald Sun.
Some background: In 1994, a year after Don’t ask, don’t tell became law, the Congress passed some piece of legislation to which had been added the Solomon Amendment, which declared that any school receiving federal funding had to allow the military to recruit on campus. The consequence of course is that a school that does not allow military recruiters on campus is barred from receiving federal funding.
Few schools batted an eyelash at this. Many schools that receive federal funding also have ROTC on campus already, which implies having recruiters, and allowing military recruiters to stand alongside recruiters from private companies hasn’t caused an uproar on any university’s main campus in the 10 years since Bill Clinton signed Solomon into law.
But law schools are a different matter. I’m not entirely sure why. All college campuses have some form of anti-discrimination policy. Law schools often have their own separate policy that folds into the parent university’s policy. And law schools by and large claim to adhere to a strict anti-discrimination code, Supreme Court cases favoring race-based admissions notwithstanding.
Where this starts to matter is, as you might have already guessed, with the LGBT crowd. While 50 years ago the military was way ahead of the rest of the country on civil rights and racial equality (it wasn’t perfect, no, but it was a fair sight better than any other organization in the country), today we lag well behind most of the rest of the country when it comes to sexual orientation.
There are several institutional reasons for this, none of which I’ll go into because I don’t care about them. I tend to think Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a ridiculous policy, especially when one considers that in 2003 the military threw out seven Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi linguists because they didn’t want to live in the closet. This at a time when the military freely admits we don’t have enough Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi linguists.
Anyway, student groups at several law schools around the country (the usual suspects in many cases, Harvard and Yale and Michigan, but also less likely suspects like Duke) have protested the Solomon Amendment’s requirement to allow military recruiters on their campuses.
Now, the anti-Solomon crowd wants to frame the debate this way: Do law schools have a First Amendment right to avoid associating with groups that don't share their non-discrimination views? Obviously, stated that way, it’s hard to argue against it. After all, freedom of association is right there in the Big C, plain as day.
The government of course prefers to point out that the law schools are entirely free not to associate with the military if they don’t want to. And the government is free not to give them money. There is after all no inverse Solomon Amendment saying that the government must give funding to law schools.
Duke Law student Jeffrey Filipink says that “Our opinion essentially is asking the military to overturn the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy if they wish to recruit. It isn't an anti-military standpoint. It's an anti-discrimination standpoint."
Filipink should be the group’s spokesman. Of course, what he forgets to say is that Congress alone has the authority to change that law, and while they may have passed it on the basis of military advice, they can change it if they want. Congress also gets to say who gets money and who doesn’t, and it’s plainly true that even if the Supreme Court strikes down Solomon, Congress is free to exclude any school that won’t allow military recruiters from its appropriations bills. Actually, I think it would be rather a terrific show of force if they did so. Nobody reads the damn approp bills anyway because they’re 2000 pages long, so until the thing had already been passed nobody would have a chance to complain.
Duke professor Erwin Chemerensky takes what in my view is a less defensible position (but then I don’t have the advantage of 3 years of Chemerensky’s instruction). "I think it's about law schools having the First Amendment right ... to not be compelled to convey the military's message," Chemerinsky said.
I’m not a lawyer, but even after I become a lawyer (assuming that happens), I still think I’ll believe it’s a rather tortured form of logic to say that having a recruiter on your campus is the same as conveying the military’s message. Of… discrimination? So, what he’s saying is that, despite the school’s strong anti-discrimination policy, allowing a recruiter on campus will tell everyone that the school actually agrees with the military’s idiot policy on LBGT rights. I don’t follow you. Believe me, I’ve read argument transcripts where precisely this logic is followed, and I don’t follow it. But maybe that’s because I’m insane. Or… maybe it’s the other way around.
In any event, I think Chemerinsky’s argument is self defeating. The Solomon Amendment does not compel a law school to “convey the military’s message.” If Chemerinsky doesn’t want Duke to convey said message, he’s free to encourage the school to ban recruiters. The school would give up federal funds but, as I assume the solicitor general will point out when this case is argued, there’s no legal requirement for Congress to give Duke money in the first place. Solomon would be inherently illegal if schools were required to receive funding OR if the government was required to give schools funding. Neither of these things is true.
I don’t care whether you want to ban military recruiters from your campus or not. None of the law schools I’m planning to apply to have taken part in this debate (they are in the South, after all), and I’m not gay, so really, I don’t much care about how it comes out one way or the other. But I don’t understand why it’s even an issue.
Some background: In 1994, a year after Don’t ask, don’t tell became law, the Congress passed some piece of legislation to which had been added the Solomon Amendment, which declared that any school receiving federal funding had to allow the military to recruit on campus. The consequence of course is that a school that does not allow military recruiters on campus is barred from receiving federal funding.
Few schools batted an eyelash at this. Many schools that receive federal funding also have ROTC on campus already, which implies having recruiters, and allowing military recruiters to stand alongside recruiters from private companies hasn’t caused an uproar on any university’s main campus in the 10 years since Bill Clinton signed Solomon into law.
But law schools are a different matter. I’m not entirely sure why. All college campuses have some form of anti-discrimination policy. Law schools often have their own separate policy that folds into the parent university’s policy. And law schools by and large claim to adhere to a strict anti-discrimination code, Supreme Court cases favoring race-based admissions notwithstanding.
Where this starts to matter is, as you might have already guessed, with the LGBT crowd. While 50 years ago the military was way ahead of the rest of the country on civil rights and racial equality (it wasn’t perfect, no, but it was a fair sight better than any other organization in the country), today we lag well behind most of the rest of the country when it comes to sexual orientation.
There are several institutional reasons for this, none of which I’ll go into because I don’t care about them. I tend to think Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a ridiculous policy, especially when one considers that in 2003 the military threw out seven Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi linguists because they didn’t want to live in the closet. This at a time when the military freely admits we don’t have enough Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi linguists.
Anyway, student groups at several law schools around the country (the usual suspects in many cases, Harvard and Yale and Michigan, but also less likely suspects like Duke) have protested the Solomon Amendment’s requirement to allow military recruiters on their campuses.
Now, the anti-Solomon crowd wants to frame the debate this way: Do law schools have a First Amendment right to avoid associating with groups that don't share their non-discrimination views? Obviously, stated that way, it’s hard to argue against it. After all, freedom of association is right there in the Big C, plain as day.
The government of course prefers to point out that the law schools are entirely free not to associate with the military if they don’t want to. And the government is free not to give them money. There is after all no inverse Solomon Amendment saying that the government must give funding to law schools.
Duke Law student Jeffrey Filipink says that “Our opinion essentially is asking the military to overturn the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy if they wish to recruit. It isn't an anti-military standpoint. It's an anti-discrimination standpoint."
Filipink should be the group’s spokesman. Of course, what he forgets to say is that Congress alone has the authority to change that law, and while they may have passed it on the basis of military advice, they can change it if they want. Congress also gets to say who gets money and who doesn’t, and it’s plainly true that even if the Supreme Court strikes down Solomon, Congress is free to exclude any school that won’t allow military recruiters from its appropriations bills. Actually, I think it would be rather a terrific show of force if they did so. Nobody reads the damn approp bills anyway because they’re 2000 pages long, so until the thing had already been passed nobody would have a chance to complain.
Duke professor Erwin Chemerensky takes what in my view is a less defensible position (but then I don’t have the advantage of 3 years of Chemerensky’s instruction). "I think it's about law schools having the First Amendment right ... to not be compelled to convey the military's message," Chemerinsky said.
I’m not a lawyer, but even after I become a lawyer (assuming that happens), I still think I’ll believe it’s a rather tortured form of logic to say that having a recruiter on your campus is the same as conveying the military’s message. Of… discrimination? So, what he’s saying is that, despite the school’s strong anti-discrimination policy, allowing a recruiter on campus will tell everyone that the school actually agrees with the military’s idiot policy on LBGT rights. I don’t follow you. Believe me, I’ve read argument transcripts where precisely this logic is followed, and I don’t follow it. But maybe that’s because I’m insane. Or… maybe it’s the other way around.
In any event, I think Chemerinsky’s argument is self defeating. The Solomon Amendment does not compel a law school to “convey the military’s message.” If Chemerinsky doesn’t want Duke to convey said message, he’s free to encourage the school to ban recruiters. The school would give up federal funds but, as I assume the solicitor general will point out when this case is argued, there’s no legal requirement for Congress to give Duke money in the first place. Solomon would be inherently illegal if schools were required to receive funding OR if the government was required to give schools funding. Neither of these things is true.
I don’t care whether you want to ban military recruiters from your campus or not. None of the law schools I’m planning to apply to have taken part in this debate (they are in the South, after all), and I’m not gay, so really, I don’t much care about how it comes out one way or the other. But I don’t understand why it’s even an issue.
07 May 2005
Utah!
As promised, I have sifted through my 168 pictures from the Utah trip, and here present a handful of the best, not in any particular order.
Here we have the Book Cliffs, on the way from Salt Lake to Moab. Not a part of a park, but I like them, and they were the first really cool rock things we'd seen. Well, aside from the Wasatch.
This is Devils Garden, looking north(?) from the Pine Tree Arch in Arches National Park. Just look at all those sandstone fins, Johnny!
Here is the White Rim Canyon, part of Canyonlands National Park. It was very grey and dreary the day we were there, but this canyon is still something else. There's a jeep trail along the rim that I'd love to take some day.
A view of the Courthouse Towers area of Arches NP. Very alien.
The Canyonlands NP area was once the shore of a great sea, millions and millions of years ago. Here we have some driftwood and sand left over from those days... Honestly, though, hiking through the area, especially along Mesa Arch Trail, a Floridian like me absolutely cannot shake the feeling that this IS a really big, dry, beach. It just feels that way.
All right, I've saved the best three for last.
This is Park Avenue, in Arches NP, in the late evening around 6 pm. Speechless.
Washer Woman Arch in Canyonlands NP. I'm in awe.
And finally, here are our three intrepid explorers, me, Angela, and Kelly. You can feel free to ask of any us, we'll tell you: it was a great time. I can't wait for next year.
Here we have the Book Cliffs, on the way from Salt Lake to Moab. Not a part of a park, but I like them, and they were the first really cool rock things we'd seen. Well, aside from the Wasatch.
This is Devils Garden, looking north(?) from the Pine Tree Arch in Arches National Park. Just look at all those sandstone fins, Johnny!
Here is the White Rim Canyon, part of Canyonlands National Park. It was very grey and dreary the day we were there, but this canyon is still something else. There's a jeep trail along the rim that I'd love to take some day.
A view of the Courthouse Towers area of Arches NP. Very alien.
The Canyonlands NP area was once the shore of a great sea, millions and millions of years ago. Here we have some driftwood and sand left over from those days... Honestly, though, hiking through the area, especially along Mesa Arch Trail, a Floridian like me absolutely cannot shake the feeling that this IS a really big, dry, beach. It just feels that way.
All right, I've saved the best three for last.
This is Park Avenue, in Arches NP, in the late evening around 6 pm. Speechless.
Washer Woman Arch in Canyonlands NP. I'm in awe.
And finally, here are our three intrepid explorers, me, Angela, and Kelly. You can feel free to ask of any us, we'll tell you: it was a great time. I can't wait for next year.
Blogroll
I have added a few blogs to my "good blogs" list over there to the right. I don't actually know any of those people but...
See, thing is, I'm sort of still on Mountain time. So last night I was up until after midnight because I wasn't tired. Normally I don't have a problem with jet lag at all--but then, when you're crossing sixteen time zones you don't really have a choice but to just fall into whatever daily schedule is operating wherever you've landed. So France, Kyrgyzstan, Japan, Hawaii--these are all easy. Utah? Not so much. Part of the problem is I've had no compelling reason to realign myself to EDT. Late for work? Nah, don't really care. Up to all hours? Nah, don't really care. The city looks nice at night anyway. So you see the problem.
Anyway, last night I happened upon the blog Sticks of Fire, which is a blog about things going on in Tampa. I live in Tampa. I liked the blog. And lo and behold, the blog's author had already discovered Smitty's World over here and given me a link as another Tampa blog. Tres cool. So I must reciprocate, but really, I'd do it anyway because it's a good blog. I mean, if you're from North Carolina it might not seem all that relevant, but you never know where the winds of employment may blow.
It turns out that Sticks of Fire links to other Tampa blogs quite frequently, so I wasted time going to these other Tampa blogs and reading them, and I've decided to link to the ones I'll likely continue reading when I have nothing to do. And isn't that what the blogosphere is about? (No, it's about redefining the entire notion of journalism, but I like rhetorical questions. Who doesn't?) Forthwith, a brief description:
Dot Bench is a rather witty individual who's job I've been unable to firmly divine. He looks an awful lot like a guy I accidentally cut off on 275 last week, so, dude, if a white Subaru cut you off on 275 last week, I really didn't mean it. The Edit Engine likes to run down underreported stories from the Tampa Bay area every day, so his site is worth a read, especially if your only paper around here is the Tribune. Sharp as a Marble is a fellow who works downtown here. I can probably see his office from my porch. He is a proud new father and possibly even prouder owner of a new kegerator, and you should definitely read about how he proposed to his wife. Maybe it's because I'm in the military, but none of my coworkers are remotely as witty as this guy. Or frankly, as any of my friends, either. Man, I hate my job. Anyway, the last link there is Steve Koppelman's Catalogue of Poorly Catalogued Things. Steve is actually from Fort Lauderdale, where I used to live and where the book I'm writing is set. I've read this blog off and on for a while now and I'm linking to it because I find it amusing. Whether you do or have lived in FTL or not you probably will, too.
And I guess it's only fair to describe the other blogs I have had on that list for a while, for those who may not know. Taegan Goddard's Political Wire is only the best nonpartisan political news blog in existence. I occasionally steal story ideas from there, as do most other political bloggers. The main news blog is great, but so are the Wingers and Southpaws lists of recent updates to prominent right- or left-wing blogs. Howard Bashman's How Appealing blog is an almost constantly updated string of news and analysis links to appellate court decisions, issues, and cases. In a similar vein, SCOTUSblog is a digest of all the news out of the U.S. Supreme Court and is the first place you'll hear about court decisions, and certainly the best place to find out about them because if you just get court news from Fox or CNN you're not getting actual news, you're getting spin. New Politics1 is another political news blog written by fans of the occasionally-but-never-quite-retired Ron Gunzberger, whose Politics1 was in its heyday the best political blog on the web but is now... well, the state info pages are still the best place to start researching candidates and races in your state. Bayciti is a catalogue of development news in the Tampa Bay area. It's a great blog and an outstanding concept, and other metro areas would be blessed to have such a blog of their own.
The other two blogs there are of people I've actually met and who are friends of mine. If any of my other friends would stop being so lazy and start their own blogs, I'd link to them. We have Des Petits Moments, which is written by a very dear college friend of mine. She claims to write mostly about her daughter, but she also works in journalism and thus can't not comment on some of the sillier things that go on in a day. Always worth a read. And finally we have The Scriptorium which is written by her dear hubby. If you don't care for thinking, I would advise not reading The Scriptorium, but if you do, it's one of the most literate and thoughtful blogs out there and I at least look forward to each update. I also look forward to sharing more Belgian ales with both of them.
Anyway. Just thought I'd give a shout out to my fellow bloggers, even if I don't know them from Adam.
See, thing is, I'm sort of still on Mountain time. So last night I was up until after midnight because I wasn't tired. Normally I don't have a problem with jet lag at all--but then, when you're crossing sixteen time zones you don't really have a choice but to just fall into whatever daily schedule is operating wherever you've landed. So France, Kyrgyzstan, Japan, Hawaii--these are all easy. Utah? Not so much. Part of the problem is I've had no compelling reason to realign myself to EDT. Late for work? Nah, don't really care. Up to all hours? Nah, don't really care. The city looks nice at night anyway. So you see the problem.
Anyway, last night I happened upon the blog Sticks of Fire, which is a blog about things going on in Tampa. I live in Tampa. I liked the blog. And lo and behold, the blog's author had already discovered Smitty's World over here and given me a link as another Tampa blog. Tres cool. So I must reciprocate, but really, I'd do it anyway because it's a good blog. I mean, if you're from North Carolina it might not seem all that relevant, but you never know where the winds of employment may blow.
It turns out that Sticks of Fire links to other Tampa blogs quite frequently, so I wasted time going to these other Tampa blogs and reading them, and I've decided to link to the ones I'll likely continue reading when I have nothing to do. And isn't that what the blogosphere is about? (No, it's about redefining the entire notion of journalism, but I like rhetorical questions. Who doesn't?) Forthwith, a brief description:
Dot Bench is a rather witty individual who's job I've been unable to firmly divine. He looks an awful lot like a guy I accidentally cut off on 275 last week, so, dude, if a white Subaru cut you off on 275 last week, I really didn't mean it. The Edit Engine likes to run down underreported stories from the Tampa Bay area every day, so his site is worth a read, especially if your only paper around here is the Tribune. Sharp as a Marble is a fellow who works downtown here. I can probably see his office from my porch. He is a proud new father and possibly even prouder owner of a new kegerator, and you should definitely read about how he proposed to his wife. Maybe it's because I'm in the military, but none of my coworkers are remotely as witty as this guy. Or frankly, as any of my friends, either. Man, I hate my job. Anyway, the last link there is Steve Koppelman's Catalogue of Poorly Catalogued Things. Steve is actually from Fort Lauderdale, where I used to live and where the book I'm writing is set. I've read this blog off and on for a while now and I'm linking to it because I find it amusing. Whether you do or have lived in FTL or not you probably will, too.
And I guess it's only fair to describe the other blogs I have had on that list for a while, for those who may not know. Taegan Goddard's Political Wire is only the best nonpartisan political news blog in existence. I occasionally steal story ideas from there, as do most other political bloggers. The main news blog is great, but so are the Wingers and Southpaws lists of recent updates to prominent right- or left-wing blogs. Howard Bashman's How Appealing blog is an almost constantly updated string of news and analysis links to appellate court decisions, issues, and cases. In a similar vein, SCOTUSblog is a digest of all the news out of the U.S. Supreme Court and is the first place you'll hear about court decisions, and certainly the best place to find out about them because if you just get court news from Fox or CNN you're not getting actual news, you're getting spin. New Politics1 is another political news blog written by fans of the occasionally-but-never-quite-retired Ron Gunzberger, whose Politics1 was in its heyday the best political blog on the web but is now... well, the state info pages are still the best place to start researching candidates and races in your state. Bayciti is a catalogue of development news in the Tampa Bay area. It's a great blog and an outstanding concept, and other metro areas would be blessed to have such a blog of their own.
The other two blogs there are of people I've actually met and who are friends of mine. If any of my other friends would stop being so lazy and start their own blogs, I'd link to them. We have Des Petits Moments, which is written by a very dear college friend of mine. She claims to write mostly about her daughter, but she also works in journalism and thus can't not comment on some of the sillier things that go on in a day. Always worth a read. And finally we have The Scriptorium which is written by her dear hubby. If you don't care for thinking, I would advise not reading The Scriptorium, but if you do, it's one of the most literate and thoughtful blogs out there and I at least look forward to each update. I also look forward to sharing more Belgian ales with both of them.
Anyway. Just thought I'd give a shout out to my fellow bloggers, even if I don't know them from Adam.
Church v. State
I wonder if we’ll ever see a supreme court case with that title?
In any event I’'ve got an article here from the Raleigh News & Observer straight out of beautiful Waynesville, North Carolina. Waynesville is the seat of Haywood County and is about 30 miles west of Asheville on I-40. I'’m sure it’s a quite lovely place, but, well...
Here’s the link to the article on the N&O’s website, but I'’m going to reproduce the thing here. It'’s a short article.
"The minister of a Haywood County Baptist church is telling members of his congregation that if they're Democrats, they either need to find another place of worship or support President Bush.
Already, the Reverend Chan Chandler has ex-communicated nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church. Another 40 members have left in protest.
During last Sunday's sermon, he acknowledged that church members were upset because he named people, and he says he'll do it again because he has to according to the word of God.
Chandler could not be reached for comment today, but says his actions weren’t politically motivated.
One former church member says Chandler told some of the members that if they didn't support George Bush, they needed to resign their positions and get out of the church, or go to the altar, repent and agree to vote for Bush.
A former church treasurer says she's at church to worship God and not the preacher."
Here'’s my take. First of all, as a Democrat who occasionally attends church, I knew this was coming. Even certain Methodists at certain churches here in Tampa have been known to telephone certain other Methodists (ahem) and beg them to switch party registration and vote for Bush because.. well, because of a lot of reasons. Among them, John Kerry is/was a sodomizer. This is the truth, folks; I may write fiction in my spare time but I'’m starting to think fact is actually less believable.
Second, does anyone remember the establishment clause in the Constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? I'’m going to be very bold here, but I don’t actually think this was done to protect government or people from religion. I think it was done to protect religion from government. And this is a perfect example. As soon as folks like Chan start forgetting the distinctions between the two things, you get jackassery of this sort, where a church (not the government!) starts restricting the free exercise of its own members’' religion on the basis of their beliefs about government.
I want to say a lot of things here but they all involve a great deal of foul language so I won'’t. After all, the article, and Chan’'s (sorry, I can'’t and won’'t call him Rev.) actions, pretty much speak for themselves.
This, of course, is nothing more than what the Republicans have done to themselves. They wanted all the Christians to vote for them. Now some pseudo-Christians (tell me what, if anything, is Christian about Chan’'s actions) are saying that you can’'t be Christian without being Republican. I'’m almost positive that'’s not anywhere in the Bible. I don'’t even think it'’s in the Book of Mormon.
In any event, if you can'’t be a Christian without being a Republican, how much farther is it to you can’'t be a Republican if you aren'’t a Christian? And a pretty wacky fundamentalist one at that. I think a lot of the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and other types in this country are already nominal Democrats, but continued actions by the likes of Chan here will solidify that for... well, at least until I'’m dead anyway. Whether the country even makes it that long or not I don'’t know.
Of course two weeks ago many churches around the country presented a broadcast by Bill Frist among others (I think DeLay might have been involved, but all the lying, cheating, and stealing have got to be wearing thin with many actual Christians) talking about how the Democrats are against “people of faith” and are trying to prevent such people from sitting on the bench. So, in other words, the 204 judges nominated by Bush and approved by the whole Senate, including Democrats, must all be atheists. Only the 10 who have been filibustered are actually people of faith. Uh-huh.
And some churches actually agreed to play this pablum for their congregations. I studiously avoided church that weekend because I didn'’t want to know if the church I attend occasionally was going to play it or not. If they had, I never could have gone back there. I'’m happier just not knowing.
Am I the only person who thinks religion is no topic for a political speech, and politics should never be brought up in the church? Maybe I am.
"Go to the altar, repent, and agree to vote for Bush." Chan should take some of his own advice, go to the altar, repent, and agree to leave politics out of his pulpit or give up his “ministry.”
In any event I’'ve got an article here from the Raleigh News & Observer straight out of beautiful Waynesville, North Carolina. Waynesville is the seat of Haywood County and is about 30 miles west of Asheville on I-40. I'’m sure it’s a quite lovely place, but, well...
Here’s the link to the article on the N&O’s website, but I'’m going to reproduce the thing here. It'’s a short article.
"The minister of a Haywood County Baptist church is telling members of his congregation that if they're Democrats, they either need to find another place of worship or support President Bush.
Already, the Reverend Chan Chandler has ex-communicated nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church. Another 40 members have left in protest.
During last Sunday's sermon, he acknowledged that church members were upset because he named people, and he says he'll do it again because he has to according to the word of God.
Chandler could not be reached for comment today, but says his actions weren’t politically motivated.
One former church member says Chandler told some of the members that if they didn't support George Bush, they needed to resign their positions and get out of the church, or go to the altar, repent and agree to vote for Bush.
A former church treasurer says she's at church to worship God and not the preacher."
Here'’s my take. First of all, as a Democrat who occasionally attends church, I knew this was coming. Even certain Methodists at certain churches here in Tampa have been known to telephone certain other Methodists (ahem) and beg them to switch party registration and vote for Bush because.. well, because of a lot of reasons. Among them, John Kerry is/was a sodomizer. This is the truth, folks; I may write fiction in my spare time but I'’m starting to think fact is actually less believable.
Second, does anyone remember the establishment clause in the Constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? I'’m going to be very bold here, but I don’t actually think this was done to protect government or people from religion. I think it was done to protect religion from government. And this is a perfect example. As soon as folks like Chan start forgetting the distinctions between the two things, you get jackassery of this sort, where a church (not the government!) starts restricting the free exercise of its own members’' religion on the basis of their beliefs about government.
I want to say a lot of things here but they all involve a great deal of foul language so I won'’t. After all, the article, and Chan’'s (sorry, I can'’t and won’'t call him Rev.) actions, pretty much speak for themselves.
This, of course, is nothing more than what the Republicans have done to themselves. They wanted all the Christians to vote for them. Now some pseudo-Christians (tell me what, if anything, is Christian about Chan’'s actions) are saying that you can’'t be Christian without being Republican. I'’m almost positive that'’s not anywhere in the Bible. I don'’t even think it'’s in the Book of Mormon.
In any event, if you can'’t be a Christian without being a Republican, how much farther is it to you can’'t be a Republican if you aren'’t a Christian? And a pretty wacky fundamentalist one at that. I think a lot of the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and other types in this country are already nominal Democrats, but continued actions by the likes of Chan here will solidify that for... well, at least until I'’m dead anyway. Whether the country even makes it that long or not I don'’t know.
Of course two weeks ago many churches around the country presented a broadcast by Bill Frist among others (I think DeLay might have been involved, but all the lying, cheating, and stealing have got to be wearing thin with many actual Christians) talking about how the Democrats are against “people of faith” and are trying to prevent such people from sitting on the bench. So, in other words, the 204 judges nominated by Bush and approved by the whole Senate, including Democrats, must all be atheists. Only the 10 who have been filibustered are actually people of faith. Uh-huh.
And some churches actually agreed to play this pablum for their congregations. I studiously avoided church that weekend because I didn'’t want to know if the church I attend occasionally was going to play it or not. If they had, I never could have gone back there. I'’m happier just not knowing.
Am I the only person who thinks religion is no topic for a political speech, and politics should never be brought up in the church? Maybe I am.
"Go to the altar, repent, and agree to vote for Bush." Chan should take some of his own advice, go to the altar, repent, and agree to leave politics out of his pulpit or give up his “ministry.”
04 May 2005
Utah
I took a vacation! Yaay, vacation!
This is really just a holding spot. I want to post a couple of pictures here, but I haven't downloaded and looked through them all yet and may not before the weekend. But I did want to say, if you find yourself wondering where you should go, I highly recommend Arches National Park in eastern Utah.
We also visited Canyonlands National Park. I would like to go back there; unfortunately, it rained on us much of the day we spent there and I don't think we got to see the park at its best. There are many hikes I'd like to take, and I think renting a jeep and taking the White Rim Road around the park would be pretty damn cool. But even on a very good day, I think Canyonlands would take a back seat to Arches. Arches is just an absolutely incredible place.
As a Calvin & Hobbes fan I know that Bill Watterson based the scenery in Calvin's Spaceman Spiff adventures on southern Utah--in fact, ahem:
"Most of the alien landscapes come from the canyons and deserts of southern Utah, a place more weird and spectacular than anything I'd previously been able to make up."
Watterson, as is so often true, is absolutely right. You've seen the pictures, you've imagined it, but until you've been there you can't quite believe it's real. The Delicate Arch, the cowboy chaps of so many photographic exhibitions and Utah state license plates, really is as ridiculously beautiful as you've been led to believe, even from a mile off. The Fiery Furnace is a devilish maze of titanic proportions, where the way out is never the one you'd pick at first hand and every turn brings you to a new vista of incredible beauty. The Landscape Arch, so frail and yet so enormous, defies description even on a day without the blue skies and tinted sunsets of the picture books. It is a place that cannot be believed without being there, and cannot be understood even while in its midst.
There are a lot of things to see in the world, and never enough time or money to see them all. But Arches, like the Everglades and Ha Long Bay, is entirely unique in the world. If you have the means, you must go.
This is really just a holding spot. I want to post a couple of pictures here, but I haven't downloaded and looked through them all yet and may not before the weekend. But I did want to say, if you find yourself wondering where you should go, I highly recommend Arches National Park in eastern Utah.
We also visited Canyonlands National Park. I would like to go back there; unfortunately, it rained on us much of the day we spent there and I don't think we got to see the park at its best. There are many hikes I'd like to take, and I think renting a jeep and taking the White Rim Road around the park would be pretty damn cool. But even on a very good day, I think Canyonlands would take a back seat to Arches. Arches is just an absolutely incredible place.
As a Calvin & Hobbes fan I know that Bill Watterson based the scenery in Calvin's Spaceman Spiff adventures on southern Utah--in fact, ahem:
"Most of the alien landscapes come from the canyons and deserts of southern Utah, a place more weird and spectacular than anything I'd previously been able to make up."
Watterson, as is so often true, is absolutely right. You've seen the pictures, you've imagined it, but until you've been there you can't quite believe it's real. The Delicate Arch, the cowboy chaps of so many photographic exhibitions and Utah state license plates, really is as ridiculously beautiful as you've been led to believe, even from a mile off. The Fiery Furnace is a devilish maze of titanic proportions, where the way out is never the one you'd pick at first hand and every turn brings you to a new vista of incredible beauty. The Landscape Arch, so frail and yet so enormous, defies description even on a day without the blue skies and tinted sunsets of the picture books. It is a place that cannot be believed without being there, and cannot be understood even while in its midst.
There are a lot of things to see in the world, and never enough time or money to see them all. But Arches, like the Everglades and Ha Long Bay, is entirely unique in the world. If you have the means, you must go.
May
I was travelling when April turned into May, and since none of us were actually aware of what day it was (blessedly), I missed it. It was worth it, of course, for the vacation, which will be described on this blog shortly.
It's one of the monthly transitions that I usually notice. I'm not sure why.
April is my birthmonth. Easter is often in April, too. My allergies are always worst in April, so April is a month where I tend to spend most of my free time inside, though I would rather be out.
And then May comes along. It's not yet so awfully hot in Florida that you have to stay inside all day to avoid heat-related death, and the oak pollen has mostly washed down the gutters and out to sea. It's a great month for bike riding and kayaking, and just about anything else.
It's also the first month when I have to say how old I am without qualifying it by saying "I just turned..." (28, in this case, if anybody reading this blog isn't already aware). So May is the start of the new year. It's the Smitty New Year. And often enough, May is a month of transition. You graduate from High School in May. You graduate from college in May, too. And a lot of weddings are in May, I guess because of the graduations. (I'd rather get married in October because October rules.)
So anyway, it's May. Yaay! I have a month to study for the LSAT. It's my last month of not flying for right now, and it's also the last month when the reason for not flying is uncomplicated. After June 7 everything's up in the air. I think we're also going to fire the Japanese Anagama wood-fired kiln at St. Pete Clay so I need to ramp up my production out there. That should be fun.
And I get to start planning the NEXT vacation...
It's one of the monthly transitions that I usually notice. I'm not sure why.
April is my birthmonth. Easter is often in April, too. My allergies are always worst in April, so April is a month where I tend to spend most of my free time inside, though I would rather be out.
And then May comes along. It's not yet so awfully hot in Florida that you have to stay inside all day to avoid heat-related death, and the oak pollen has mostly washed down the gutters and out to sea. It's a great month for bike riding and kayaking, and just about anything else.
It's also the first month when I have to say how old I am without qualifying it by saying "I just turned..." (28, in this case, if anybody reading this blog isn't already aware). So May is the start of the new year. It's the Smitty New Year. And often enough, May is a month of transition. You graduate from High School in May. You graduate from college in May, too. And a lot of weddings are in May, I guess because of the graduations. (I'd rather get married in October because October rules.)
So anyway, it's May. Yaay! I have a month to study for the LSAT. It's my last month of not flying for right now, and it's also the last month when the reason for not flying is uncomplicated. After June 7 everything's up in the air. I think we're also going to fire the Japanese Anagama wood-fired kiln at St. Pete Clay so I need to ramp up my production out there. That should be fun.
And I get to start planning the NEXT vacation...
A new game
As the 2008 presidential election gets underway (I know, I know... I'm a little late with this), there will be plenty of small entertainments to go around. Right now we're in the "Great Mentioning" phase of the campaign, although in reality that started back in 2001. One of the names occasionally mentioned in the Great Mentioning is that of Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel.
So here's the first entry in our new game, called "Count the Qualifiers." People who take part in the Great Mentioning, both the mentioners and the mentioned, want the mentioned to display some level of coyness, or perhaps modesty, about the exact nature of their ambitions. You can't just come right out during the Great Mentioning and say, "I'm running for president!" That's so... hackneyed. It makes you seem like an overeager ten-year-old trying to get picked first for a team in P.E. Instead, you have to play it coy. Is he running? Who knows! This week, it's Senator Hagel's turn. Here's a quote from today's Lincoln Journal-Star.
"I hope to be in position to have the option of entertaining the possibility of running for president."
Hagel has set the bar pretty high with this one, but we'll see if any others of the mentioned can beat him.
So here's the first entry in our new game, called "Count the Qualifiers." People who take part in the Great Mentioning, both the mentioners and the mentioned, want the mentioned to display some level of coyness, or perhaps modesty, about the exact nature of their ambitions. You can't just come right out during the Great Mentioning and say, "I'm running for president!" That's so... hackneyed. It makes you seem like an overeager ten-year-old trying to get picked first for a team in P.E. Instead, you have to play it coy. Is he running? Who knows! This week, it's Senator Hagel's turn. Here's a quote from today's Lincoln Journal-Star.
"I hope to be in position to have the option of entertaining the possibility of running for president."
Hagel has set the bar pretty high with this one, but we'll see if any others of the mentioned can beat him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)