This is my last week and I will try to get a new post per day until Friday. I’ve gone back and forth on this a bit but the bottom line is that I don’t feel like going on so…It’ll probably be about four more entries until the end.
Tossing Endorsements Overboard
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has rejected the endorsements of two preachers (John Hagee and Rod Parsley) he sought to shore up conservative support during the primaries. Both pastors are those apocalyptical preachers that view everything through the prism of a single book of the Bible (Revelation) and end up saying outlandish things like how God caused the Holocaust to happen so the Jews would end up in Israel again…because it’s part of Biblical prophecy and the apocalypse can’t take place without the Jews in Israel.
Honestly, McCain probably never believed anything that Hagee or Parsley preach about and simply sought out their endorsements as part of political maneuvering, which while creepy on one level, sure beats the idea that he wanted their support because they share his views. It’s not the same as spending 20 years in a church with a pastor who served as your personal spiritual advisor…unless Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) wants to come out and say that he used Jeremiah Wright to gain street cred in Chicago while he was an up and coming local politician.
Other Primary Notes
While the long primary season might’ve hurt Obama in some ways, this article points out that it also gave him a shot at running in almost all 50 states and developing an especially sharp ground game.
This is an article about what McCain should be looking for in a running mate. Slow dancing skills were not one of the things mentioned.
The RFK Remark
You can’t mention the presidential primary without looking at the Robert Kennedy comments Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) recently made. In an interview discussing her chance at clinching the nomination and how primaries often aren’t decided until June, she said, “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
I saw the interview and the context the statement was made in and the interviewer skipped right by the assassination reference and stayed with the ‘primaries-don’t-end-before-June’ line of questioning. Her campaign defended the remark, which she had previously made in March, saying that she was merely talking about the history of primaries. Which I agree with…sorta.
You know how you can say something that means one thing on one level and has another meaning on another? That’s clearly what this is. It’s like when Obama during a debate talked about admiring Clinton for withstanding media attacks of the mid-90s and then started restating those attacks she withstood. It sounded like he was complimenting her but what he was actually doing was bringing up those old attacks. If Clinton attacked him for doing that, he could’ve responded by saying, ‘I agree those were unfair attacks and I was praising you for withstanding them.’ She would’ve looked silly and so she kept her mouth shut and he got free shots at her.
The difference with this is that there are people who remember where they were when Robert Kennedy was killed and his death brings back memories and because it had an effect on their lives, they’re going to have a strong, negative reaction to Clinton’s comments…regardless of their ‘intent.’
But for the Clinton campaign to act like people who took those comments in a negative way are somehow irrational, ignorant or irresponsible…I don’t know, it kind of explains why Clinton’s in the mess that she’s in after being a clear frontrunner for so long.
Oh, and one last thing about the comments. She keeps bringing up about her husband winning the nomination in June. The Iowa caucus happened six weeks later then than it did in 2008, so mid June in that cycle is the equivalent to late April in this one. Also, he clinched the nomination because he went over the pledged delegate count, he was virtually mathematically assured of winning the contest win he nearly swept Super Tuesday and his main competition, Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) didn’t win a state after March 24th (which would’ve been the equivalent to the second week of February in this year’s cycle).
Her husband won 52% of the popular vote in what started out as a crowded field. He lost just nine states. So while he didn’t become the presumptive nominee until June, it wasn’t like this was a competitive race until June. And even if it was, the primary season started six weeks later than it did this year. Her comparison is just inaccurate.
As for the 1968 primary, it’s a totally different discussion. There was an incumbent president within the party who announced he wouldn’t run late into the game (the last day of March 1968). This through the nomination into a tailspin that guaranteed it couldn’t be resolved quickly. Second, the primary system is vastly different now than it was then. It was much less dependent on individual primaries back then. In fact, only a few states even held primaries. Third, the party was undergoing a realignment and therefore was deeply fractured. This caused votes to be split and final tallies to be very narrow. It wasn’t like the presidential nominee was going to be chosen by June. It was going to go to convention just like it always had in the past. Clinton’s statement ignores these realities.
If these two examples are her arguments for staying in…her argument isn’t very strong since neither bear even the slightest resemblance to the situation she finds herself in.
Clinton Has the Most Votes…Sorta
Clinton is also going around claiming to have the lead in the popular vote. But looking at this collection of information, she’s trailing in the popular vote any way you look at it unless you include Michigan, a state where Obama’s name didn’t appear on the ballot. By the most favorable count for Clinton (including Florida and Michigan), she leads by 164,654. It’s worth noting that Uncommitted finished second in Michigan with 238,168.
Random Lieberman Update
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) continued his person War on Terror by demanding YouTube take down various Islamist videos that are deemed to encourage terrorism. YouTube took down some of the videos that contained violence or hate speech, which they said violated their community standards but did not take down all the videos in question.
New Bin Laden Tape
Osama bin Laden released a tape that called on Muslims to liberate Palestine. It was a short message, lasting just under 10 minutes and he didn’t give his review of the new Indiana Jones movie.
The Ruskies Are Seeing Red
Russia’s Communist party was upset with the new Indiana Jones movie. It’s unclear whether it was the overreliance on CGI effects or how every time Indy was doing a stunt, it was dark and shadowy and you couldn’t see Harrison Ford’s face.
I saw this movie over the weekend and it was a dreadful piece of shit. It should’ve been called ‘Indiana Jones and the Quest for a Heart’ because this movie was in desperate need of heart. It was a collection of stunts that didn’t have to make sense and a plot that seemed to borrow liberally from 'Alien v. Predator,' 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and a bad 'X-Files' episode. Aside from being predictable and hokey, it was also boring. The action scenes were dull, the acting was soulless and the ending wouldn’t actually end…something that Steven Spielberg has struggled with for the last 10 years or so.
Oh…and Shia LeFluff as an motorcycle riding greaser? I buy it just less than I bought C. Thomas Howell in ‘The Outsiders.’
However, I had a blast making sarcastic comments throughout the film. So, I at least had a fun time, even if the movie sucked alien ass.
Karen Allen Hides Her Role
Karen Allen reprises her role that she played in the first movie. She claims that Spielberg originally wanted to keep her role in this picture a secret. She said, “Even after the film was announced, people would call me. 'Oh, it's too bad you're not going to be in the film.' I had to go along with it and say, 'Yeah, it's a shame.' When it was finally announced I was in it, it was a huge relief. I was having to make up stories for why I wasn't in it, and I was finding it excruciating to have to do that.”
Why was she having to make up stories for why she wouldn’t be in this Indiana Jones movie? I mean, she wasn’t in the second or third one? You think Short Round (the little Goonies kid from the Temple of Doom) is explaining to friends and family why he isn’t in this one? No, he’s still explaining why he hasn’t done a real movie since 'Encino Man' and telling stories about what Howard Hessman’s REALLY like.
At the Dwarf House
I ate at the Chick-fil-a Dwarf House with my mom and brother over the weekend. She had salad with a side of salad. That’s not a joke. This wasn’t her choice though. She ordered a salad and the waitress brought out a side salad and then a little bit later, she came by and gave my mom the main salad. It was weird.
I had a steak, which I knew was a mistake. I mean, Chick-fil-a uses cows as their spokesmen and here the company is serving chopped up cows for lunch. I should’ve ordered something else and when I got sick, I knew I had it coming.
I did get to walk through the tiny dwarf door though, so it was at least kinda worth it.
Hey, do dwarves get offended by the Dwarf House? Do any dwarves go there or do they avoid it? Would they use the dwarf door or the door for real sized people? It’d be hard to laugh if I saw a dwarf or a midget at a Dwarf House.
The Great DJ
There's this band called the Ting Tings and when I first heard this song, I didn't know the name of it and I thought it was annoying. Then I heard it again. Still annoying. Then I heard the name of it, 'The Great DJ' and I felt like I was supposed to like it, so I listened again. And I don't know if it's the dancing, the strings (ee ee ee ee ee ee ee) or if it's the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums...but damn it, I started liking this song. I'm sure it's probably not going to translate for anyone else but just in case, take a listen.
Showing posts with label ted kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ted kennedy. Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Kennedy's Cancer, McCain's "Like Jesus" & Vatican Okays Aliens
Okay, I really don’t have much I feel like I writing but I don’t want to go too long without at least putting some post out there. So, here’s this one, which mainly will be a reprint of something I wrote quite a while ago. I still have that story about AT&T I want to tell but that’ll take too long to convert my notes into anything that resembles something readable. Anyway, until then, this will have to do.
Kennedy’s Brain Cancer
It’s impossible not to start off with the news surrounding Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). He had a seizure over the weekend that it turns out was triggered by a malignant brain tumor. He is reportedly alert and moving around.
His prognosis is yet to be fully determined. The most common type of brain tumors are glioblastomas, making up 52% of all primary brain tumor cases. Survival rates for such cases are very low, typically only 3% of patients survive five years after being diagnosed with the tumor. Patients with slower growing tumors have a higher rate of survival over a five year span, though it’s still only around a 25% rate. Kennedy’s situation depends largely on determining what type of tumor it is.
All three presidential candidates issued statements on the news but I found it notable that the phrase both Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) chose to use to describe Kennedy was “effective.” When you look at the list of major bills Kennedy has pushed into law, it’s simply staggering. If you look back at the top legislative battles over the last 40 years, Kennedy had a significant role in many of them. While some senators are content to do nothing but collect a paycheck (Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Wayne Allard (R-CO), I’m looking at you two), Kennedy is a hard working senator who continues to have a hand in the legislative activities on the Hill. He’s been a remarkably consistent figure, who, whether you agree or disagree with him, you always know where he stands. And despite being clearly liberal, he has a history of working across party lines and has earned the respect of Democrats and Republicans alike.
Just to note, neither senator from Georgia put out a statement on the news on their website (though one might well have gone out to the media, or those deemed ‘important’).
The Pledge of Allegiance
Three middle-schoolers were suspended for a day because they didn’t stand during the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the students (surprise) didn’t approve of the punishment because, “I didn't do anything wrong. It should be the people's choice.”
These are really two separate issues. First, a rule’s a rule. If there’s a rule and you want to break that rule to ‘prove a point’ then you have the right to do that but be prepared to take the consequences. In school, I can think of several times I made a decision to not do what I was told because, for one reason or another, I thought it was wrong or whatever. And I faced the consequences accordingly. It didn’t make me regret what I’d done though.
Apparently the one student quoted above had been doing this all year and wasn’t asked to explain himself or anything, which I find hard to believe. Now, what I think would be a more appropriate ‘punishment’ is to have the student write an essay about why he is refusing to stand. In fifth grade, I declined to take part in a classroom activity and the teacher agreed to let me opt out if I wrote a one page essay on why I wouldn’t participate. So I went to the library for an hour and wrote several pages on my opposition to the project in question. I greatly respected my teacher’s willingness to avoid the activity and her ability to assign something that forced me to articulate my objections.
I think a creative way of dealing with these three students would be to have them explain their position. It’s great to go around screaming about free speech but what good’s free speech if you can’t back it up with arguments supporting your position?
The rule in the student handbook requires students to stand but does NOT require them to recite the Pledge. In school, I stood but I wouldn’t say the Pledge and to this day, I refuse to say the Pledge (more on that in a minute).
The second issue is whether the school has a constitutional right to punish the students for not participating and it’s been pretty well decided that it’s the right of the students to opt out. In court, there’s no way the suspensions can hold up legally. What the school is in a sense arguing is that they’re not punishing them for not reciting the Pledge, they’re suspending them for not standing when being told to stand and simply standing is not part of participating in the Pledge.
As for the Pledge itself, I found something I had written a while ago in response to a question I received. Reading it now, there are things I would change but I’m including it in its entirety. So if it sounds stupid, remember that it was written by the Me of Back Then not the Me of Right Now.
First, most countries don’t have a Pledge. Nationalist regimes, such as the ones in Italy and Germany in the 30s as well as the Soviet Union had one in order to require allegiance to their nation. Most free nations don’t require such a thing. I’m concerned that it’s mainly children that are forced to pledge allegiance. They’re being asked to pledge to something they can’t possibly understand or fully grasp. Adults, who are better able to comprehend such a commitment are not usually asked to recite it. Why is that? Is it a form of Nationalistic brainwashing, teaching mindless obedience to the nation-state? Is it a coincidence that the original Pledge salute, now placing the hand over the heart, was almost identical to the Nazi salute? It was changed in WWII because of the similarity.
As for the ‘One Nation Under God’ line, it’s notable that the sentence didn’t enter the Pledge until the 50s, over six decades after it was originally written. That’s a very complex sentence and deserves a great deal of theological and political thought. What does that REALLY mean? It’s something to examine and consider, but instead it’s rattled off like it’s meaningless. There’s a lot of consequence behind that sentence. Is it establishing the residue of a monotheistic theocracy?
While it doesn’t refer to the Christian God, the inference and historical context is clear. Just as Georgia claimed that changing their state flag in the 50s to include the Stars and Bars had nothing to do with racism, the context of the switch being made right after the Brown v. Board of Education decision is not a coincidence. Neither is referencing God during the heart of the Cold War against the Soviets who didn’t believe in God. We were basically establishing our superiority over them because our faith was in a higher power and everyone knew what higher power was being referenced.
And while several religions can refer to God, of the major religions, only Islam, Christianity and Judaism maintain a monotheistic tradition that would (a) refer to a singular God and (b) refer to a God at all (Note: Those three religions are all considered Abrahamic). Religions such as Hinduism (depending on the sect) worship multiple gods and those like Buddhism worship ideas and not gods, though they follow the guidance of Buddha and his incarnations. It’s pretty clear that the Pledge is not referring to Allah since it’s implicitly saying that our country was founded under a God and I doubt any of the Founders worshipped Allah. (Though Jefferson maintained a copy of the Koran, then again, so do I).
Further, the Knights of Columbus were the group that had been fighting for the addition of the sentence (or some recognition of God) and finally succeeded in 1952. They were the largest Catholic Fraternal service in the country. Considering that, it’s very clear what God they were referring to.
Another interesting thing is that in 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that students could be forced to say it even if their personal religious beliefs opposed such a practice (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses). The decision was overruled three years later.
As for the Separation of Church and State, while the Constitution doesn’t state it, the Supreme Court has derived that from the Constitution and under numerous decisions, the Separation of Church and State is the current precedent of our country. And under the Constitution, the Court’s ruling on that is as good as law. So…
And the Freedom of Religion doesn’t just extend to what religion you can practice but it also extends the right to not practice a religion at all. But forcing a person to acknowledge the existence of a God at all goes against the right to hold the belief that there isn’t in fact a God. In that way, it is opposed to religion and since it was Congress that allowed the addition of the phrase, Congress was making a law pertaining to the practice of religion.
Beyond that, it’s valuable to examine where the Pledge came from originally. It was written by a Socialist as part of an advertisement to sell flags. It was then used as a way to ‘reunite’ the country after the Civil War, which is why it says ‘one nation indivisible.’ It’s a direct reference to the Civil War, and the guy who wrote it, Francis Bellamy said so. In a way, one could read that as pledging allegiance to the North. It was used as yet another for the North to rub the South’s face in the War. This is also why it has the term Republic in there, because the South was set up as a Confederacy, which is what America was originally founded on under the Articles of Confederation. The Pledge is anti-South and kids are being forced to denounce the South everyday in school.
That’s another valid question, what does ‘indivisible’ mean? Does that mean it can’t be divided because it’s so strong or that it’s impermissible to be divided? It’s an important distinction since the North was fighting in large measure because they did not acknowledge the South’s right leave the Union. The South recognized the right of succession. In a way, the Pledge is using the North’s victory as evidence that succession is invalid. Again, that’s exactly what the writer of the Pledge said he believed.
Moreover, this nationalism steps on the foundation of State’s Rights. One could argue that citizens are loyal to the State first and then the Nation. Jefferson believed that power trickled up from the local branches, not the other way around. But to establish loyalty to the Federal government over the state could be considered a violation of the spirit of the 10th amendment.
On the other hand, this is a Democratic-Republic. When the Pledge was recently challenged, the attorney general in each of the 50 states filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the phrase. In a Senate vote, ‘Under God’ was supported unanimously and in the House, it was three votes away from being unanimous (11 people didn’t vote one way or the other). Also, 90% of Americans, according to a poll at that time, supported the Pledge in its current form.
So, you know, whatever all that means, there it is. I’m not a fan of the Pledge. Not really much of a fan of the flag either but at least it looks nice so I don’t complain about it too often.
Hagee’s Letter
Reverend John Hagee, a McCain supporter, has made several repulsive anti-Catholic statements and has recently apologized, “Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.”
Does everyone feel better now? William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights (and recipient of Hagee’s letter) said, “I got what I wanted. He's seen the light, as they like to say. So for me it's over.”
See, I don’t get this. Hagee says he’s sorry and that’s it? The issue goes away? I don’t get it. I support a death match between Hagee and Donohue. Steel cage, each guy can bring in one outside weapon like a chair or a wrench. That’d be great. It beats the shit out of a letter of apology.
McCain is “Like Jesus”
I’ve never been a big fan of Georgia’s Republican Chairwoman, Sue Everhart for many reasons. For one thing, she wears so much perfume that when she leaves a room, you can still smell her for an hour. Literally, I’ve been in a room that I didn’t know beforehand that she was in and I’ve turned to someone and said, “Sue Everhart’s been here, hasn’t she?” And it turned out, she had been.
When not stinking up rooms, Sue Everhart says things like, “John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross. He never denounced God, either.” She was referring to McCain’s time spent in a POW camp in North Vietnam. She attempted to clarify her statement by adding, “I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there.”
Maybe what Stinky Sue is missing is that the word ‘like’ is a comparison word. When you use it, you ARE in fact comparing two things. This isn’t about trying or not trying or anything…It just is. Regardless of your feelings on Jesus (or John McCain for that matter), the comparison is more than a little odd.
Gimme My Gun
Governor Sonny Perdue (R-GA) signed legislation to allow gun owners with a license to carry to take their gun on MARTA, in restaurants and public parks. You know, that’s great because I’ve always felt the need to carry a gun while eating a barbeque sandwich. The gun control debate seems to have legislatively broken down into two sides: Those who support legislation like this and those who support banning all guns. Both sides are ridiculous and I can’t believe most Americans aren’t somewhere in between. It’s possible to have reasonable gun control laws while still respecting the Second Amendment.
But allowing guns in places that serve alcohol, I don’t know, it just seems unreasonable. And in the greater context of Perdue’s unwillingness to support allowing the sale of alcohol on Sundays at grocery and liquor stores, while at the same time supporting alcohol sales at Gwinnett’s new stadium on Sundays…It just seems a little strange to me. Maybe it’s not. Maybe contradictions are life’s new logic.
No New TV on ABC
ABC will have only two new shows this fall. ‘Life on Mars’ and ‘Opportunity Knocks.’ That’s it. That’s the list. They’ll be adding ‘Scrubs’ during midseason, which used to be on NBC. I thought this past season would be the last for ‘Scrubs’ but apparently not. I loved the first six episodes of Scrubs and liked the first two seasons but it really went off track after that. Season 3 was dreadful and Season 4 started with promise (I thought Heather Graham was great) but the quality of the show over the second half of that year fell off. It’s had flashes of being a good show as in a moment there or whatever. The last episode was one of the most dreadful 30 minutes I’ve ever sat through. If I hadn’t already packed my knife, I would’ve stabbed myself in the eye. That said, I’ll still watch it on ABC because I’m a complete moron.
Vatican Okays Aliens
The Vatican announced that it’s okay to believe in aliens. They didn’t comment on whether it was okay to watch X-Files reruns. When the Vatican makes announcements like this, is it supposed to affect me? Am I supposed to do something now? Maybe issue my own statements what it’s okay to believe in? ‘I now proclaim it is okay to believe in French toast.’
Random Thoughts
Okay, I got a weird call today. It was from 866-849-3243 and when I answered it, it was a recording saying, “I’m sorry to disturb you. This call was intended for an answering machine.” And the call ended. How weird is that?
I’d really like to go to Six Flags and I found a deal where I could get a significant amount off for multiple tickets but I don’t know anyone who would actually want to go to Six Flags. Also, I now live three light years away instead of the 10 minutes it used to be when I lived in Cobb.
My Charter Internet works okay except at night. It runs really slow until the early morning hours and it’s okay in the afternoon. But it sucks donkey ass at night.
Oh, and have I mentioned how much I hate Vista lately?
To read my thoughts on sports, please visit http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/djwright
Kennedy’s Brain Cancer
It’s impossible not to start off with the news surrounding Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). He had a seizure over the weekend that it turns out was triggered by a malignant brain tumor. He is reportedly alert and moving around.
His prognosis is yet to be fully determined. The most common type of brain tumors are glioblastomas, making up 52% of all primary brain tumor cases. Survival rates for such cases are very low, typically only 3% of patients survive five years after being diagnosed with the tumor. Patients with slower growing tumors have a higher rate of survival over a five year span, though it’s still only around a 25% rate. Kennedy’s situation depends largely on determining what type of tumor it is.
All three presidential candidates issued statements on the news but I found it notable that the phrase both Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) chose to use to describe Kennedy was “effective.” When you look at the list of major bills Kennedy has pushed into law, it’s simply staggering. If you look back at the top legislative battles over the last 40 years, Kennedy had a significant role in many of them. While some senators are content to do nothing but collect a paycheck (Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Wayne Allard (R-CO), I’m looking at you two), Kennedy is a hard working senator who continues to have a hand in the legislative activities on the Hill. He’s been a remarkably consistent figure, who, whether you agree or disagree with him, you always know where he stands. And despite being clearly liberal, he has a history of working across party lines and has earned the respect of Democrats and Republicans alike.
Just to note, neither senator from Georgia put out a statement on the news on their website (though one might well have gone out to the media, or those deemed ‘important’).
The Pledge of Allegiance
Three middle-schoolers were suspended for a day because they didn’t stand during the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the students (surprise) didn’t approve of the punishment because, “I didn't do anything wrong. It should be the people's choice.”
These are really two separate issues. First, a rule’s a rule. If there’s a rule and you want to break that rule to ‘prove a point’ then you have the right to do that but be prepared to take the consequences. In school, I can think of several times I made a decision to not do what I was told because, for one reason or another, I thought it was wrong or whatever. And I faced the consequences accordingly. It didn’t make me regret what I’d done though.
Apparently the one student quoted above had been doing this all year and wasn’t asked to explain himself or anything, which I find hard to believe. Now, what I think would be a more appropriate ‘punishment’ is to have the student write an essay about why he is refusing to stand. In fifth grade, I declined to take part in a classroom activity and the teacher agreed to let me opt out if I wrote a one page essay on why I wouldn’t participate. So I went to the library for an hour and wrote several pages on my opposition to the project in question. I greatly respected my teacher’s willingness to avoid the activity and her ability to assign something that forced me to articulate my objections.
I think a creative way of dealing with these three students would be to have them explain their position. It’s great to go around screaming about free speech but what good’s free speech if you can’t back it up with arguments supporting your position?
The rule in the student handbook requires students to stand but does NOT require them to recite the Pledge. In school, I stood but I wouldn’t say the Pledge and to this day, I refuse to say the Pledge (more on that in a minute).
The second issue is whether the school has a constitutional right to punish the students for not participating and it’s been pretty well decided that it’s the right of the students to opt out. In court, there’s no way the suspensions can hold up legally. What the school is in a sense arguing is that they’re not punishing them for not reciting the Pledge, they’re suspending them for not standing when being told to stand and simply standing is not part of participating in the Pledge.
As for the Pledge itself, I found something I had written a while ago in response to a question I received. Reading it now, there are things I would change but I’m including it in its entirety. So if it sounds stupid, remember that it was written by the Me of Back Then not the Me of Right Now.
First, most countries don’t have a Pledge. Nationalist regimes, such as the ones in Italy and Germany in the 30s as well as the Soviet Union had one in order to require allegiance to their nation. Most free nations don’t require such a thing. I’m concerned that it’s mainly children that are forced to pledge allegiance. They’re being asked to pledge to something they can’t possibly understand or fully grasp. Adults, who are better able to comprehend such a commitment are not usually asked to recite it. Why is that? Is it a form of Nationalistic brainwashing, teaching mindless obedience to the nation-state? Is it a coincidence that the original Pledge salute, now placing the hand over the heart, was almost identical to the Nazi salute? It was changed in WWII because of the similarity.
As for the ‘One Nation Under God’ line, it’s notable that the sentence didn’t enter the Pledge until the 50s, over six decades after it was originally written. That’s a very complex sentence and deserves a great deal of theological and political thought. What does that REALLY mean? It’s something to examine and consider, but instead it’s rattled off like it’s meaningless. There’s a lot of consequence behind that sentence. Is it establishing the residue of a monotheistic theocracy?
While it doesn’t refer to the Christian God, the inference and historical context is clear. Just as Georgia claimed that changing their state flag in the 50s to include the Stars and Bars had nothing to do with racism, the context of the switch being made right after the Brown v. Board of Education decision is not a coincidence. Neither is referencing God during the heart of the Cold War against the Soviets who didn’t believe in God. We were basically establishing our superiority over them because our faith was in a higher power and everyone knew what higher power was being referenced.
And while several religions can refer to God, of the major religions, only Islam, Christianity and Judaism maintain a monotheistic tradition that would (a) refer to a singular God and (b) refer to a God at all (Note: Those three religions are all considered Abrahamic). Religions such as Hinduism (depending on the sect) worship multiple gods and those like Buddhism worship ideas and not gods, though they follow the guidance of Buddha and his incarnations. It’s pretty clear that the Pledge is not referring to Allah since it’s implicitly saying that our country was founded under a God and I doubt any of the Founders worshipped Allah. (Though Jefferson maintained a copy of the Koran, then again, so do I).
Further, the Knights of Columbus were the group that had been fighting for the addition of the sentence (or some recognition of God) and finally succeeded in 1952. They were the largest Catholic Fraternal service in the country. Considering that, it’s very clear what God they were referring to.
Another interesting thing is that in 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that students could be forced to say it even if their personal religious beliefs opposed such a practice (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses). The decision was overruled three years later.
As for the Separation of Church and State, while the Constitution doesn’t state it, the Supreme Court has derived that from the Constitution and under numerous decisions, the Separation of Church and State is the current precedent of our country. And under the Constitution, the Court’s ruling on that is as good as law. So…
And the Freedom of Religion doesn’t just extend to what religion you can practice but it also extends the right to not practice a religion at all. But forcing a person to acknowledge the existence of a God at all goes against the right to hold the belief that there isn’t in fact a God. In that way, it is opposed to religion and since it was Congress that allowed the addition of the phrase, Congress was making a law pertaining to the practice of religion.
Beyond that, it’s valuable to examine where the Pledge came from originally. It was written by a Socialist as part of an advertisement to sell flags. It was then used as a way to ‘reunite’ the country after the Civil War, which is why it says ‘one nation indivisible.’ It’s a direct reference to the Civil War, and the guy who wrote it, Francis Bellamy said so. In a way, one could read that as pledging allegiance to the North. It was used as yet another for the North to rub the South’s face in the War. This is also why it has the term Republic in there, because the South was set up as a Confederacy, which is what America was originally founded on under the Articles of Confederation. The Pledge is anti-South and kids are being forced to denounce the South everyday in school.
That’s another valid question, what does ‘indivisible’ mean? Does that mean it can’t be divided because it’s so strong or that it’s impermissible to be divided? It’s an important distinction since the North was fighting in large measure because they did not acknowledge the South’s right leave the Union. The South recognized the right of succession. In a way, the Pledge is using the North’s victory as evidence that succession is invalid. Again, that’s exactly what the writer of the Pledge said he believed.
Moreover, this nationalism steps on the foundation of State’s Rights. One could argue that citizens are loyal to the State first and then the Nation. Jefferson believed that power trickled up from the local branches, not the other way around. But to establish loyalty to the Federal government over the state could be considered a violation of the spirit of the 10th amendment.
On the other hand, this is a Democratic-Republic. When the Pledge was recently challenged, the attorney general in each of the 50 states filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the phrase. In a Senate vote, ‘Under God’ was supported unanimously and in the House, it was three votes away from being unanimous (11 people didn’t vote one way or the other). Also, 90% of Americans, according to a poll at that time, supported the Pledge in its current form.
So, you know, whatever all that means, there it is. I’m not a fan of the Pledge. Not really much of a fan of the flag either but at least it looks nice so I don’t complain about it too often.
Hagee’s Letter
Reverend John Hagee, a McCain supporter, has made several repulsive anti-Catholic statements and has recently apologized, “Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.”
Does everyone feel better now? William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights (and recipient of Hagee’s letter) said, “I got what I wanted. He's seen the light, as they like to say. So for me it's over.”
See, I don’t get this. Hagee says he’s sorry and that’s it? The issue goes away? I don’t get it. I support a death match between Hagee and Donohue. Steel cage, each guy can bring in one outside weapon like a chair or a wrench. That’d be great. It beats the shit out of a letter of apology.
McCain is “Like Jesus”
I’ve never been a big fan of Georgia’s Republican Chairwoman, Sue Everhart for many reasons. For one thing, she wears so much perfume that when she leaves a room, you can still smell her for an hour. Literally, I’ve been in a room that I didn’t know beforehand that she was in and I’ve turned to someone and said, “Sue Everhart’s been here, hasn’t she?” And it turned out, she had been.
When not stinking up rooms, Sue Everhart says things like, “John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross. He never denounced God, either.” She was referring to McCain’s time spent in a POW camp in North Vietnam. She attempted to clarify her statement by adding, “I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there.”
Maybe what Stinky Sue is missing is that the word ‘like’ is a comparison word. When you use it, you ARE in fact comparing two things. This isn’t about trying or not trying or anything…It just is. Regardless of your feelings on Jesus (or John McCain for that matter), the comparison is more than a little odd.
Gimme My Gun
Governor Sonny Perdue (R-GA) signed legislation to allow gun owners with a license to carry to take their gun on MARTA, in restaurants and public parks. You know, that’s great because I’ve always felt the need to carry a gun while eating a barbeque sandwich. The gun control debate seems to have legislatively broken down into two sides: Those who support legislation like this and those who support banning all guns. Both sides are ridiculous and I can’t believe most Americans aren’t somewhere in between. It’s possible to have reasonable gun control laws while still respecting the Second Amendment.
But allowing guns in places that serve alcohol, I don’t know, it just seems unreasonable. And in the greater context of Perdue’s unwillingness to support allowing the sale of alcohol on Sundays at grocery and liquor stores, while at the same time supporting alcohol sales at Gwinnett’s new stadium on Sundays…It just seems a little strange to me. Maybe it’s not. Maybe contradictions are life’s new logic.
No New TV on ABC
ABC will have only two new shows this fall. ‘Life on Mars’ and ‘Opportunity Knocks.’ That’s it. That’s the list. They’ll be adding ‘Scrubs’ during midseason, which used to be on NBC. I thought this past season would be the last for ‘Scrubs’ but apparently not. I loved the first six episodes of Scrubs and liked the first two seasons but it really went off track after that. Season 3 was dreadful and Season 4 started with promise (I thought Heather Graham was great) but the quality of the show over the second half of that year fell off. It’s had flashes of being a good show as in a moment there or whatever. The last episode was one of the most dreadful 30 minutes I’ve ever sat through. If I hadn’t already packed my knife, I would’ve stabbed myself in the eye. That said, I’ll still watch it on ABC because I’m a complete moron.
Vatican Okays Aliens
The Vatican announced that it’s okay to believe in aliens. They didn’t comment on whether it was okay to watch X-Files reruns. When the Vatican makes announcements like this, is it supposed to affect me? Am I supposed to do something now? Maybe issue my own statements what it’s okay to believe in? ‘I now proclaim it is okay to believe in French toast.’
Random Thoughts
Okay, I got a weird call today. It was from 866-849-3243 and when I answered it, it was a recording saying, “I’m sorry to disturb you. This call was intended for an answering machine.” And the call ended. How weird is that?
I’d really like to go to Six Flags and I found a deal where I could get a significant amount off for multiple tickets but I don’t know anyone who would actually want to go to Six Flags. Also, I now live three light years away instead of the 10 minutes it used to be when I lived in Cobb.
My Charter Internet works okay except at night. It runs really slow until the early morning hours and it’s okay in the afternoon. But it sucks donkey ass at night.
Oh, and have I mentioned how much I hate Vista lately?
To read my thoughts on sports, please visit http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/djwright
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
