Sweet Justice: Mojave Desert Memorial Cross, Stolen

Perhaps you recall a recent dust-up (primarily reported by the one and only Fox News) of a cross in the mojave desert, that memorializes the veterans of foreign wars.  It's a pretty random sight, but the ACLU filed suit claiming that it was a violation of separation of church and state because it was on federal land.  The bitter Supreme Court battle resulting in a 5-4 decision in favor of the leaving the cross standing.  A Not so surprising outcome considering the conservative leanings of the current court.

In what can only be described as an act of cosmic justice against the arrogance the Religious Right, the cross has been stolen.  While I sympathize with the veterans groups involved in this fight, there was an easy fix to this entire problem.  Simply don't use religious symbols in war memorials.  Since we are NOT a Christian nation, crap like that is bound to offend someone, and you reap the rewards of your arrogance in believing that it wouldn't.

Though I feel slightly bad that many veterans will be hurt by this story, I could not help but laugh at the irony of this situation.  The Religious Right spent years defending this cross in court, only to have to lopped off in the middle of the night.  Now that is what I call sweet justice winning out in the end.

(Also, please enjoy the fact that the fox news writer on this story appears to be so angry that he might have an aneurism at any moment)

Common Sense

The Nomination of Elena Kagan: Opening Salvo from the GOP

As expected, The Grand Old Party has begun to opposed the nomination of Elana Kagan for SCOTUS.  This shouldn't be surprising in the partisan climate of the senate, but here are the first two GOP law makers to come out against her nomination.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the arch-conservative leader of climate change deniers, wasted only 6 hours before officially announcing his opposition to Elana Kagan.  6 hours?!  yeah, that was a fair judgement.  I thought the Republicans couldn't read that fast, at least according to the likes of Michelle Bachmann, who wanted 3 months to read the Health Care Bill.  This is also the same Senator who refused to even meet with now sitting justice Sonia Sotomayor.  So, no one should be surprised.

The Senator's reasons for opposing her nomination are either incredibly either incredibly one dimensional or he is just making stuff up to justify his political posturing.  I wouldn't be surprised by either.  Inhofe claims that he is opposing her nomination because she kicked military recruiters off campus when she was Dean of Harvard Law School.  She did so because of the military's discriminatory policy toward gay and lesbian service members.  She also joined an unsuccessful law suit against the Soloman Amendment, forcing college campuses to keep their military recruiters of risk losing federal funds.  Apparently this makes Kagan "Unfit to serve on the nation's highest court."  If anything, it seems to me that she is MORE fit to be on the court because of her opposition to discrimination and federal control of higher education.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member of the judiciary committee, also appears to be hedging his bets against Elana Kagan.  According to the same article, Sessions has refered to Kagan as an "activist," who will be difficult to confirm due to her lack of a judicial record.  If she doesn't have a judicial record, how on earth could he know she would be an "activist" judge?  (we'll skip the process of defining what an "judicial activist"really is for the time being)  At any rate, let's address the issue of experience.  What is the real difference between being a professor (or Dean) at a Law School and being a judge?  And how does that relate to the Supreme Court?

First question.  Being a professor in any capacity is about CREATING knowledge and building new interpretations that might provide a better understanding of the law, while being a judge is about APPLYING knowledge only when questions are brought before them (often dealing with statutory law rather than constitutional law), with the power of interpretation being almost exclusively held by the appellate courts. In short, professors are PROACTIVE in legal interpretation, while judges are REACTIVE in judicial interpretation.

Second question.  It should be pretty clear how this relates to the courts.  Unlike normal judges, justices on the supreme court are probably closer to law professors than they are to the traditional judge.  Justices on the supreme court make sweeping and binding interpretations about the constitution.  Even though they are reacting to an issue brought before them, they have tremendous control over which issues to grapple with in a given year, in the same way that professors will choose a field or sub-field in which to write about.  This is also the level of the judiciary where law is CREATED (and it is created, anyone who says only the legislature "creates" law is a fool who doesn't properly understand the constitution or our government).  The appellate courts also create law, but most of their major decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court, thus making this court the final arbiter on the creation of new and binding law.

Therefor, a law professor may actually make for a better more proactive Justice on the supreme court.  Her experience as a creator of knowledge is likely to result in more creative and innovative decisions, her experience in government suggests she will have a strong grasp of constitutional principles as they relate to governmental powers and authority, and her lack of experience as a judge frees her from the dogmatic procedural programming that, while helpful for a judge, may not be helpful for a Justice.

Common Sense

Leave The Ivory Tower Alone: KKK at UT

The University of Texas has refused to rename a dorm named for William Simkins, a notoriously racist law professor at UT from the early 20th century.  Apparently, he used to espouse racist views during his classes and suggested that "Negros" should not be allowed in classes where there were lots of women.

While I agree that his comments were despicable, they were absolutely no different from the views of most other Americans at the time.  If we are going to rename this building why not rename EVERY building named for someone who lived during slavery?  Jefferson would disappear from campuses everywhere.  As would about half of all the names on buildings around campus.

We all recognize slavery as a moral atrocity from history, but these people were honored for their dedication and service to the school, not their social views.  Simkins may have been a D-bag, but he served the school and offered his time and life to education (even though he may have failed to provide it objectively at times).  He is still worthy of praise for that service.  He should not be crucified for social views, especially views that were mainstream at the time.  One of the most difficult tasks of any good historian is not to judge past figures by today's moral standards.  Otherwise, EVERY historical figure would be found wanting.

Everyone should chill out on this topic and remember that you don't need to get the school to change the name in order to draw attention to the topic.  In fact, keeping the name might offer a valuable learning experience for the students who live in that dorm if someone had the motivation and ingenuity to use it.

Seriously people, leave higher education alone.  Our minds are always 10-20 years ahead, but our campuses are about 10-20 years behind.  Change takes a little bit longer for us, but it always happens.  Be patient.

Common Sense.

Sarah Palin: National Day of Prayer and US Law

In reaction to the dust up over the National Day of Prayer, Sarah Palin made the not-so-surprising claim that this was yet another conspiracy to turn the country away from it's spiritual roots.

Check it out:


So, let's talk about why Sarah Palin is stupid (as if a discussion is even necessary at this point).

1) The nation was founded at a time when the presence of God was an assumed reality.  However, the country was not founded on religious ideals.  It was founded on the ideals of freedom (which includes the freedom to choose a religion and freedom from forced religious observance).  Hence the use of God in the founding documents is not a statement of a national belief in God, so much as it is a statement of a historically assumed fact.  At the time most of the founding fathers owned slaves, and slavery was an accepted norm for the time.  Should we also return to that tradition?  certainly not, and Sarah would probably agree with us there.  What Sarah is really saying is that we should pick and choose which "founding assumed truths" we are going to return to, and that her choice is the only one that makes sense.  Sorry Sarah, that's not democracy, and no matter how large a majority you build around that ideal it is still unconstitutional.

2) Discussion of history?  I'm sure that most academics, and probably even more Americans in general would love to have a discussion about the historical significance of religion.  However, NDOP is NOT a discussion.  Nothing about it is intellectual in any way.  If we are going to have a discussion, lets have a discussion.  But let's not pretend that a national day of prayer amounts to a discussion of religion, rather it amounts to national observance and preference for religion.

3) The protest against day of prayer is some people attempting to impose their views on the rest of us?  Actually you've got that backwards.  A national day of prayer imposes a religious view on America that does not exist.  As much as 12% of the population has no religious conviction, and I would guess that a staggering majority hold only loose religious convictions. So really, a national day of prayer is YOU attempting to impose your religiosity on the rest of US.

4) Payer is NEVER equality.  One of the arguments made over and over in support of the NDOP is that no matter what faith you are, everyone can pray to whatever they believe in.  Well, Atheists and non-traditional deists don't pray, and they don't believe in a "higher power."  So, actually they are left out, and forced to watch their country recognize and impose preference for religion over non-religion.  That is STILL unconstitutional, because people have the right to believe NOTHING and to have the view respected and supported by their government.

Now lets get back to Sarah's belief that the law should be based on the bible.  This is actually a topic that was addressed by Richard Dawkins in his work, The God Delusion.  The vast majority of Christians believe, as Sarah Palin does, that US law should be based on the bible.  It never ceases to amaze me how people who demand religious freedom, can be so cavalier in depriving it from others.  The use of the bible as the foundation for US law would be a clear establishment of national religion, because it would prefer biblical (Judeo-Christian) religion over ALL other religions and non-religions.  This is such a clear violation of the constitution that it's almost embarrassing that I have to explain it.  It is borderline treasonous!  We have a large group of politicians lead by Sarah Palin actively working to subvert the constitution and over 200 years of U.S. law!!  Sorry Sarah, there is no conspiracy against religion here, but you certainly seem to be conspiring against the rest of us.

Common Sense

The Supreme Court: Elena Kagan for Associate Justice

There is nothing in politics like an election year appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  The only way this could get more divisive would be if it were a presidential election year.  Though, Obama did make a very practical choice under the current circumstances.  Here is my take on the nomination:

THE GOOD:
1) She is a Moderate, and is expected to be able to bring together coalitions among the liberal and conservative justices.  Though I'm not sure where that will come from, considering the block of four staunch conservatives.  Basically, everyone is saying she can manipulate Kennedy.
2) She is VERY well qualified.  She has served in just about every sector of the legal profession from a private firm to academia, then to the White House, then back to Academia where she served as the Dean of Harvard Law School, then back to the White House.
3) She has exceptional credentials.  Princeton, to Oxford (Masters), to Harvard Law.
4) She is NOT a sitting judge.  Seriously, it's about time we got away from only hiring our SCOTUS justices from the circuit bench.
5) She is a WOMAN!!  The historic nomination of a second woman will bring the total count of women on the court to 3 out of 9 total.  Hopefully, future presidents will follow his lead and continue to nominate women.  I wouldn't be opposed to a court of 9 women!

THE BAD:
1) Obama is replacing the last of the great liberal powerhouses in any branch of government with a moderate.  In a time when conservatives are nominating and electing the fringe, replacing a mega-liberal with a left-leaning moderate continues the courts slide toward the disastrous conservative decisions like Citizens United.  Another moderate makes it more likely that there will be more guns on the streets, more religious entanglement in government, and less freedom for under-protected groups.  I understand that Obama is a moderate, but he should also be protecting the balance of the court, not helping the neo-con buttheads do irreparable harm to the constitution.

Overall,
I give this nomination a "B+", solid and well thought out, but still not great.  We continue to wait for our liberal Scalia.

Common Sense

On Religion: Child Molestation and the Bible

Everyone is once again up in arms over the scandal of child molestation in the church.  Apparently, the past 2000 years of repression and violence by the religious across the world wasn't enough to get people angry, but maybe this will wake people up to the fact that religion is probably not a good idea.  I'm not holding my breath.  Being of a spiritual family I reiterate that I am referring to organized religious observation, not personal spirituality.  The former involves dogmatic in-groups, out-groups, and group think which inevitably leads to prejudice and violence.  The latter is personal, and entirely dependent on the will of the individual.

At any rate, let talk about child molestation.  I was reading this article about the how "hurting children" was handled in the bible.  They refer to a few various passages in Matthew.  Here is a sampling:

If you do not become like children, you'll never enter the kingdom of heaven ... Whoever humbles oneself like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ... Whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me ... " (Matt 18:3-5)

"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6)

One can, however, avoid this "eternal fire" by cutting off one's body parts that might damage a child (Matt 18:7-9)

Yikes!  The average reader will immediately imagine that God is particularly wrathful when it comes to the hurting of children (though many atheist authors from Dawkins to Hitchens have explained how the instinctual over-protection of children can also be explained biologically).  What the average reader will not know is that this language is not uncommon in the bible.  The bible is in fact a violent book full of maiming, killing, and genocide for various crimes (many of which have fallen out of favor even by the most ardently religious individuals).

What I find particularly stupid is how we immediately go to the bible for guidance, as though it is the definitive word on whether something is good or bad, and then having found something that mentions children, we immediately apply it's teachings.  How about just using some common sense?  Children, especially those who have not yet hit puberty (the biological point of sexual preparation), will not respond well to sexual encounters, especially those with individuals in a position of power over them.  Psychological research suggests that this can have life-long consequences, including depression and suicide.  Doesn't that sound like a better reason for thinking this is a bad idea?  Think about it, God tells me not to vs. you are HURTING the child and possibly destroying their life!  which sounds more convincing to you?

What is particularly disturbing is that we are ignoring the more pressing concern here.  We are happy to place 100% of the blame on the priest (who should really know better than to take advantage of the power and responsibility vested in them).  But what about the parents whose blind religious belief resulted in them vesting complete and total faith in these priests?  No other individual responsible for raising and protecting children is given that much blind faith.  From nanny cams to Parent-teacher associations, we seek to control all other individuals who have power over our children.  why not priests?  my contention is simple.  The parents of these children who trained their children to respect the authority of the church above all else are complicit in this form of child abuse.  They psychologically tied their children's hands, leaving them vulnerable to abuse, and then they believed (with no good reason) that the priests would not take advantage of that.  We need to spread the blame around a little bit more.  It's not just priests, it's ignorant "god-fearing" parents, who leave their children defenseless against a predatory priest.  There is plenty of blame for both!

Common Sense

Racial Politics: SB 1070's New Crime: Breathing While Brown

There are two issues in the new immigration law in Arizona (SB 1070): Principle and Practice.

I will accept that the law does not allow police to just run around and pick up brown people off the street corner and accuse them of being illegal (though the practice of at least one sheriff seems to contradict that statement as we will see).  However, there are still problems.

In principle the law allows police broad discretion to use their prejudice to determine who might be here illegally.  When they pull me over and demand to see my liscense, which I have forgotten at home, am I going to be accused of being an illegal?  No, because I have pale skin and I speak excellent english.  Would my father be accused in the same circumstance?  probably, even though he speaks impeccable english, he has dark skin.  Would me grandmother?  most likely yes, because even though she is a citizen, she looks hispanic and she speaks soft english (but still fluent).  the problem is that even though each of us is a citizen, the police would be responsible for deciding which is more or less likely to be a citizen and make an accusation accordingly.  Thus, my problem.  My citizenship status, or that of my family members, is not decided by the police, and they have no right to accuse me of not being a citizen without cause.  And not having a driver's license on me is NOT cause.

In practice it appears that all the fears were warranted.  Today, Huffington Post reported that a Phoenix sheriff when on a crime sweep and rounded up 89 criminals 61 of which were illegals.  seems kinda strange that 61 of your 89 would be illegal.  If you are just rounding up criminals regardless of their status and with no prejudice why would such a large proportion be illegal?  Unless you are stupid enough to subscribe to the myth that illegals are here to commit crimes against us, this should make you question whether the cops were really out to find people they suspected of being illegals.

If you really believe any of the following you might be a little bit racist:
1) illegals are here to commit crimes against americans
2) illegals commit more crimes than other people in their communities
sorry to tell you but neither is true.  most illegal immigrants are here to find a peaceful life where their children can become successful and wealthy and live the American dream.

Looking to the future.  This whole debate has dug up issues from English as the National Language in Alabama to racist comparisons in the US House to censorship in schools.  Clearly this is a great law if it has such great affects.

Common Sense

Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: How to Destroy a Republican Senator.

Usually it makes me smile when a self-righteous republican gets outed as a gay man (there are so few republican women that the probability of one of them being a lesbian is pretty low).  Lindsey Graham being accused of being gay is only slightly less amusing for me.  Not only because he seems like a decent guy and senator, but because it's almost like watching the kids in Lord of the Flies go crazy and kill the fat kid.  You wish that we were civilized enough not to kill the weaker members of the pack, but the GOP proves that we are not.

This seems to be just another example of the infighting going on in the GOP, but also it reveals that when you want to discredit a republican all you have to do is insinuate that they are gay.  It may or may not be true (Lindsey Graham seems like he could definitely be gay), but the point is that the insinuation is enough to make national news.  The GOP really thinks they are not homophobes and bigots?  I'm sorry, but if your whole strategy is to destroy someone's career by stoking fears that they MIGHT be gay, thats textbook homophobia.

On to a deeper point, lets say Lindsey Graham is gay.  If you've seen the movies Outraged (which you should watch to gain some perspective on the subject of closeted republicans) or Gay Republicans, you know that being gay on capitol hill is common for either party.  The republicans even have very open gay supporters.  So, why are they attacking their own people?  for the extreme anti-gay religious right?  for a voting block of a few million people?  As they say in Outrage, the gays make the capitol run on time.  In my experience the gays really do influence everything.  From the stereotypical gay fashionistas to the powerful mega-lesbian CEOs and senior business women.  Those are just stereotypes, gay men and women come in all shades in between those two extremes, but the point is YOU can't live without us, so why are you taking us on?

Common Sense

On The Environment: Drill, Baby...Spill?

There is plenty of hoopla streaming across the national media regarding the recent oil spill, and I couldn't help but notice a few rather interesting contradictions.

1) The big name "Drillers" from Palin to Steele haven't said a word.  Palin did however take time to point out that she too was part of an oil spill from the Exxon, and so she sympathizes with the families of the oil rig.  Thanks Sarah!  now how about some action.  Don't just say "I went through that too" and then continue to advocate policies with disastrous consequences (isn't the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time... I knew she was insane).  How about you actually advocate policies that don't cost billions in clean up costs and even more in irreversible natural loses.

2) Everyone is up in arms about the impending environmental disaster ... except 83% of fox news online viewers who when asked whether this disaster should result in a scaling back of oil drilling in the gulf responded "No, off shore drilling is necessary to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Drill, Baby, Drill."  It seems impossible to argue with that logic ... unless you have an ounce of basic intelligence.  First of all, drilling off the coast will only fractionally decrease our dependence on foreign oil reserves.  In fact, if we were able to immediately draw out all of the oil off the coast it would last about 5 years.  Thats not reality.  Reality is that working at full capacity, the best we could hope for is that we would meet less than 1% of world demand.  Since we only just opened up the coastal oil fields, and rigs cost $2 Billion and ten years to build, you do the math.  even our kids wont see our oil production at full capacity.


Now the question is, are we really willing to sacrifice our environment for a fraction of 1% of the market?  apparently the answer to these selfish neo-con thugs is yes.  And in 300 years when all the oil on earth runs out (assuming we survive that long) they can look forward to cleaning up the giant mess they made.  but if they have their way we wont survive that long.  we'll barely make it to 2050, at which time we wont have much of a planet left.  Thanks neo-cons.


3) where is the righteous indignation about "oil rig safety" that accompanied the disaster in the West Virginia Mine collapse?  Everyone is more interested in making this about Obama's energy policy (Fox News, HuffPo).  So, coal mine collapses, it's a labor issue, but if an oil rig explodes it's an issue of energy policy?  And where is the coverage of the 11 people who died on the oil rig?  I couldn't turn on the TV a week ago without hearing about the miners who died in WV, but I actually had to dig to find any mention of the oil rig crew.


Lesson learned?  1) GOP leaders are hypocrites.  2) Fox news viewers are selfish and more interested in driving their cars than perpetuating our planet past 2050.  3) The media grabs onto the first story line that causes controversy and pushes it till it's dead (or till all the people are dead).


Common Sense

Return of the Blogger

So, I just spent the last 4 months writing, defending, editing, and submitting my Master's Thesis.  Now that it's over and graduation is growing near, I have time to dedicate to blogging again.

It is also worth mentioning that one of my colleagues today informed me that she reads my blog and finds it amusing.  Thank for the support Mary. =)

So, where to begin?  there is just so much that has happened in the past 4 months that demands a little common sense.  Stay tuned...