Friday, August 29, 2003
Bush is a Four Letter Word
Jared the Evil Queen has put it all together and proven indisputably that our president is not the man to lead a country such as this. Her proof appears here. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Women, too, I guess. We need all the help we can get.
Eaten Alive but Feeling Okay About It For the Time Being
I’m getting nibbles. It’s not that I’m trying to sell anything or looking for work or to hire somebody. These are actual nibbles. And since I dont’ do the icthycide thing, you know it’s not my rod and reel that are getting the attention - not even euphemistically. What I have, rather, is a series of three little welts on the back of my right hand. Wednesday morning it was one at the base of my thumb. Thursday I awoke to find a new one a bit below the knuckle of my index finger. And now today, it’s yet another one down on the side of the ball of my palm.
(Aside, to those who have negative opinions on housepets: One thing I’m pretty certain of is that these didn’t come from a parasite that lives on our dog or cat. The dog gets treated monthly and is very clean. And I actually bathed the cat last night since she’s a fat lazy slob, and I saw absolutely no flea dirt or that sort of distastefulness. Whatever it is, it ain’t the pets.)
All three are in a tidy straight line. I’d think it was one bite, travelling around - but as I type up these notes (which I wrote on the bus) I see all three making a bug-bite exclamation point. And they itch. Or, more accurately, each of the itched when I discovered it. In my wisdom and restraint I have attacked my itchy bites until I de-epidermized them. Benefit: less itchy. Drawback: a tad gruesome. It amazes me that all the bites are in the same area, in a line, since I slept in different positions and totally under the covers. But nature’s majesty knows no bounds, neither in the loftiest peak nor the smallest bloodsucking parasite. Oops - lost my equanimity.
Regaining equanimity: Tomorrow Kel and I return to Philo for two days and nights of quiet, clarity and relaxation, thanks to gracious and generous friends with a lovely warm cabin on 20 unfenced acres. We’ll walk among the redwoods, visit the banks of the Navarro river; we’ll eat wholesome food and we’ll breathe air that the trees have just exhaled. The dog will accompany us, which gives me great satisfaction - such a good dog deserves a hillside to romp on, off leash and laughing as dogs indeed do laugh.
(Noted in my notebook: The bus just unexpectedly turned up Larkin at the Century Theater-and-25-cent-video-arcade (("Military: No Cover! Coming Soon: Summer Cummings!)) - something has apparently caught fire on O’Farrell and it’s caused us to make a route change due to the hook-n-ladders and pumpers in the middle of the street. Hmm. Those sound like, respectively, the performers and clientele of the Century.)
It’s been a bit of a grind of a week, as perhaps my posts suggest. Lots of heavy stuff, long nights, full days. I’m not complaining, but I’m ready to rejuvenate - but I still have one more full day to endure and I need that powerburst to lift me over this last set of hurdles. My dream last night (in which I was criticized harshly for having stained and discolored teeth) for some reason still bothers me; I un-set my alarm somehow and woke up late, leaving me no time to do my yoga and clear my mind. So instead I will recall a few nice things people have said to me in the past week or three:
* You’re such a nice deviation. (From the office manager of a non-profit where I volunteer, who stopped by to drop off some work for me to do.)
* You look fly today. (From a coworker who is youthful and stylish.)
* We owe you so much - here, have some chocolate. Really, have more. (From boss and co-worker in a planning and strategy meeting.)
* 33 (from a stranger-cum-new friend who asked my age and was told to guess first.)
* You’re the first one who’s really listened to me. I appreciate that. (From a friend facing a big decision and getting a lot of advice that wasn’t too helpful.)
* You’re a life-saver! (Accompanying a Starbunks gift certificate, given to me by the ED of a program we fund for doing my job, which is helping people fill out forms correctly so I don’t have to call them later and make them do it again.)
* Hmmm. Nice apples. (Context omitted due to modesty.)
That feels better. I’ll see you all next week, and for all of you Aussie tennis players, Happy Laver Day.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Moore or Less
For those of you who have been distracted by the crush of multifarous realities, Alabama state supreme court’s Chief Justice the hon. Roy Moore has a 2.5 ton statement to make. Two years or so ago he caused to have erected a privately donated monument to the ten commandments in the rotunda of the State Supreme Court building. His rationale was to recognize and pay homage to the basic judeo-christian moral framework upon which our society today has been crafted, as further described here. Moore may be speaking for many Alabamians - he was popularly elected in a landslide, having already achieved some renown for his display of a carved wooden “ten commandments” plaque in his courtroom in a lower court. The rotunda monument, however, was immediately criticized by liberals and libertarians, and the ACLU brought suit in federal court to have it removed. That suit was ultimately successful and the 11th circuit USDC ordered the monument removed. Judge Moore was suspended by the Alabama Board of Judicial Inquiry on August 25 for refusing to comply with that order. He and his supporters are engaged in ongoing demonstrations, even as the monument was removed yesterday from the courthouse rotunda.
My extended rant on this subject continues below.
This matter raises many complex questions of jurisdiction and federal-state comity. These are discussed far more thoroughly than I could hope to here. I’m particularly pleased to point out this site because it is written by my old con law and legal theory professor, who is a very nice guy and an absolute genius with regard to constitutional issues.
My point, or the one I feel compelled to make myself, anyway, concerns Judge Moore’s rationale - the idea that our society is founded on the moral precepts of biblical teachings. I would readily admit that these religious codes are important to our society - as were Hammurabi’s (which predate the ten commandments by, in some estimates, about 1000 years), the Roman civil code, and Greek principles of ethics and social structure. But whatever. None of these embody the principles on which this country was founded. The founders looked to god, but not to the bible - the constitutional framers being notorious freethinkers. Hence, the constitution contains no biblical quotes or references, and the first amendment thereto prohibits the state from supporting or impairing any religious institution.
But let’s go back a bit further in our continental experience. The framers wrote as they did because they sought to articulate the common sentiment of their constituency - a sentiment which emphasized the rule of law, natural freedoms, representation and respect. These principles are in turn derived from the founding philosophies of the various original colonies - which were established when this continent was a haven for those facing religious or political persecution at home. Puritans, Catholics, even Quakers found refuge here from heavy-handed hegemonies; here they could believe and worship as they saw fit without the intrusion of the state (in the person of the king) to correct or upbraid them. Yes, many of those pioneers intollerantly denied these freedoms and liberties to others - but they were on the right track, and over time we have slowly learned to embrace these principles more and more firmly so that today even women and persons of african descent are considered fully human - and we (or I, anyway) have trouble conceiving of things any other way. But our founders lived in a time of prejudice and oppression, and had to forge their new free world out of, and in spite of, millenia of historical tradition to the contrary. They pointed us toward our goal and trusted us to stay the course. It has taken us too long to get where we are, to turn back now.
And I do consider Judge Moore’s intrasigent prosletyzing to be tantamont to turning back from hard-fought progress. The worlds from which our ancestors historically escaped to this land overwhelmingly paid explicit homage to the ten commandments and the subordination of men to God - all of Europe and latin America fostered state-supported religion and integrated god into the affairs of men more intimately even than Judge Moore has proposed. If that was what our forebears wanted, they’d have stayed where they were. But they wanted freedom, so they came here. Freedom has been hard to define and a damn long time coming, but now that we have a decent slice of it we must jealously guard against it’s being whittled away, even as we mobilize to increase our share. Judge Moore, if that stone tablet really represents your law, you should not be a judge in this country. We use different laws. Go somewhere where god is not decreed forever to be separated from the state, and leave this country to those who continue to honor its founding values: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And let us not overlook the fact, which I rarely see discussed, that there are several different versions of the ten commandments. When Judge Moore chose “his” version of the ten commandments, he was not honoring a judeo-christian heritage - he was advancing his own version (or King James’) of “holy writ” over and against those of his neighbors who read different versions. His sanctimony is most troublesome because it is, even on its face, without premise or principle - he excludes millions of his supposed “brothers” with his egocentric belief that the stone tablets are monoliths, when they are in fact significantly various. And if there is such variation even in the supposedly immutable word of god, how can he claim the superiority of one version without dishonoring the faiths and traditions that follow the others? Or don’t they count? Or are they simply wrong? Evil? Damned? Or are the others right, and Judge Moore is the one facing the brimstone? I don’t know who, if anyone, is actually “right” in this aspect of the controversy - but I do gravely distrust anyone who claims to be.
« Less