Oh, good GRIEF.
Phelps wants monuments across the land: Rev. Fred Phelps of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., on Wednesday announced plans to place monuments denouncing slain University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard in cities and towns around the nation. The monument, which proclaims that Shepard, who was gay, is in hell, will be placed in cities that have Ten Commandments monuments on display in publicly owned facilities.
... Well, if nothing else, it may do wonders for getting such monuments out of public facilities.
Posted by iain at 05:08 PM
Ah, yes. The good old "historic documents" dodge.
The Casper Star-Tribune: Plaza chosen as Ten Commandments monument solution: The City Council decided Tuesday to move a controversial Ten Commandments monument out of a park and into a plaza that will honor a variety of historic documents. The 5-4 vote followed a unanimous rejection of an offer by the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., to place his own monument in the park. Phelps has been calling for a monument declaring that Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered in October, 1998, went to hell because of his sexual orientation. Shepard's murder sparked a nationwide outcry for hate-crimes legislation. [...] Those who voted for the monument plaza plan included Mayor Barb Peryam, who said that is where the Ten Commandments monument belongs. ''And for those outsiders who think they can run our city, I say, 'Thank you, thank you very, very much.' Because, you know what, if you think that we are going to put our monument someplace in cold storage, I've got another thought for you. We are going to put it where it will be more noticed, more taken advantage of and used for learning purposes by all families,'' she said. ''If we are going to be taken to court for this action, then so be it,'' she added. ''Bring it on, because this is a battle I firmly believe we can win.''
Had the mayor kept her big mouth shut, it might, at the least, have had a slightly better chance, depending on what the record of the debate over this issue says. However, with that comment, it's going to be brutally clear to any court that the intent of the city of Casper was to do an endrun around the intent of the court's ruling; most judges seem to take a dim view of that sort of thing. Which, to be sure, isn't to say that Casper might not just get away with it.
Casper Star-Tribune: Casper ponders 'historic plaza': Two years ago, the city of Grand Junction, Colo., devised a plan that solved a dilemma involving a Ten Commandments monument on public property. Because the plan worked so well, the city of Casper is now considering a similar scheme in order to solve its own Ten Commandments dilemma. [...] To play up the historic and secular value of the Ten Commandments, the Grand Junction City Council changed the context in which the city displayed the monolith by placing five other monuments -- each dedicated to a document of great importance to America's legal history -- around the Decalogue, Wilson said. The council called this display "Cornerstones of Law and Liberty." Along with the Ten Commandments, monuments were placed honoring the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. However, even with this change, the ACLU went ahead with its lawsuit against Grand Junction, Wilson said. When the case was decided in federal court, U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel of Denver ruled that a reasonable person would find that Grand Junction displayed its Ten Commandments in a manner that was historic, secular, and therefore constitutional, Wilson said. "The federal court agreed with us and the ACLU went away," Wilson said. "They did not appeal, and I took that as meaning they thought that they did not think they were going to win." Erecting the five additional monuments cost $50,000, Wilson said.
Actually, I think that most reasonable people would assume that Grand Junction did an endrun around the intent of the ruling to do what they wanted to do anyway and promote an illegal establishment of religion. Judge Wiley Daniel of Denver was quite quite full of it, going along like that. The Ten Commandments are not logically related to any of those documents, almost every single one of which is concerned with promoting the power of the individual over that of the state, or at least of limiting the power of the state or monarch. The historical value of the Commandments in that display is tangential, at best. However, for the time being, such displays are legal, so that's probably the way Casper will go, and they're likely to get away with it. They'll almost certainly have monuments to the same documents -- Grand Junction has established a pattern, after all.
Of course, as that article notes, the problem isn't that the Ten Commandments are or are not historical documents. The problem is that (1) Grand Junction's case predates Summum vs the City of Ogden (2002), which now controls, and (2) the problem is the specifically religious content of the Commandments, and the fact that religious speech is protected speech. (The issue at hand is actually a pure "freedom of speech" issue; the establishment clause was not argued in the Summum appeal, which pissed off the appeals court something fierce.) In fact, the appeals court specifically rejected the "historic relevance" argument as regards Ogden's monument; I can't imagine that Casper's will do any better in the same circuit court of appeals. Casper may well be allowed to stick the Commandments in their little historical plaza, but according to the decision, they'll also be required to allow other less popular religious viewpoints to be displayed as well, because the city is not allowed to distinguish between approved and unapproved forms of allowable speech in public forums. Which means, by refusing to simply remove the monument from public property, they have handed Phelps a beautiful, golden case which they almost certainly cannot win.
Idiots.
But, my, the results of this ill-considered decision are likely to be entertaining (to everyone but the Casper city council) for years to come!
Posted by iain at 01:06 AM
FT.com Home US: US President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he will campaign for re-election next year by arguing that "the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership".
... You have GOT to be kidding. He's going to campaign on the concept that the world is more peaceful while presiding over an occupation that's bloodier than the actual war was.
Good grief, this administration is so irony-impaired that it's not even funny. Surely someone in the administration is telling him, "You know, Mr President, this just isn't a good idea. Maybe -- MAYBE -- in a few years the world will be more peaceful and calm as a result of the Recent Unpleasantness, but this certainly is not that day. This would be a bad campaign strategy, they're going to rake you over the coals and you'll deserve every minute of it. Just Say No! to the World Peace campaign!"
But he didn't, and now he's stuck with it.
And, of course, he announced it the day of some of the deadliest civilian attacks by the terrorists.
Posted by iain at 11:40 PM
And the Congress said: Lo! Thou mayest display the commandments of the lord our god, because we ain't havin' no truck with this freedom of religion stuff because we don't actually believe in the Constitution anyway. We wouldst require it not only for Congress but for all halls of government, schools, private institutions and homes everywhere, but we don't think we could quite get away with that one. But we thinkest that it makes a lovely political issue in the Bible Belt. And Lo! Congress are assholes.
(Article below reproduced in full because the Birmingham News tends to expire its articles quickly.)
Ten Commandments bill introduced (Birmingham News/al.com, 10/23/03): A copy of the Ten Commandments would be displayed in the U.S. Capitol under a bill introduced Tuesday in Congress by members from Alabama and Florida. The bill, if approved by the House and Senate, would not dictate the size or type of display, only that the architect of the Capitol place an "appropriate" marker somewhere in the historic building.
People who support the government displaying the commandments have been lobbying the issue for weeks, inspired by the confrontation in Montgomery over a granite monument suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had installed. Hundreds rallied at the Capitol earlier this month asking Congress to officially recognize the role of the Ten Commandments in American law. "The Ten Commandments represent a charge to individuals to raise their sights and reminds them of a higher moral code," said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the bill's chief sponsor. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville, said Wednesday that displaying the commandments in the U.S. Capitol would set an example for state capitols. "I don't think this is something our founding fathers would have a problem with," said Aderholt, a cosponsor of the bill.
Because it is a concurrent resolution, Stearns' one-page proposal would not require the president's signature to be enforced. The House and Senate in 1997 and 1998 endorsed the idea of displaying the Ten Commandments in the Capitol, but the new bill would require it be done. Advocates have said they would raise money to pay for the display. But critics concerned that displaying the commandments blurs the line between church and state have opposed the idea and said the Judeo-Christian document could offend people of other religions.
A similar proposal Stearns introduced in February, calling for the display in the House and Senate chambers, has yet to receive a committee hearing. A bill Aderholt introduced in May to insulate government displays of the Ten Commandments from court challenge has gained 106 cosponsors but has not been given a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.
Sigh. Just ... sigh.
I hope someone in the Congress has the sense to lock these things up in the Judiciary Committee forever. But I'm very much afraid that they won't. Why, you ask? Well, for one thing, this:
Hostettler fights judicial rulings (Courier and Press, Sept 23, 2003): U.S. Rep. John Hostettler is continuing his battle against what he calls erroneous judicial decisions and said he is prepared to engage new legislative weapons if necessary. Hostettler, who in July successfully fought for the passage of two amendments that would bar federal funds from being used to enforce court decisions about the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, said he is prepared to use legislative measures that would limit jurisdictional authority. Just as the courts have the right to put checks and balances on the other two branches of government, Hostettler argues, Congress has the right to check and balance the judiciary. The Congress, he explained, has created lower courts within the judiciary, such as the 11th Circuit Court in 1981. Citing Articles 1 and 3 of the Constitution, Indiana's 8th District Republican congressman said Congress could eliminate and merge federal courts - something it has done over the years. It also has the power to limit federal court jurisdiction, remove judges, set pay, and even determine where the courts meet.
So Congress has declared that it will not allow the government to be used to enforce court rulings. Congress apparently no longer really believes in the rule of law, if that means that government will be required to enforce unpopular rulings. One wonders how long it will be before this pernicious attitude spreads beyond the currently limited issues of the Pledge and the Commandments. (Of course, it could backfire in interesting ways. The courts could always declare that Congress was not only incorrect in making these rules -- which they indisputably are, and I don't imagine they would stand any sort of court challenge -- but that Congress itself was in contempt of court. That could lead to all sorts of interesting complications, since Congress would, of course, retaliate by declaring any such ruling in contempt of Congress.)
Elsewhere, the rest of the country continues to agree that we just don't need this fardling freedom of religion thing.
- Despite legal decisions from all over the country that such things are unconstitutional, an Indiana courthouse is trying to keep its commandments display;
- a Georgia country commission doesn't give a good goddamn that such displays are illegal and originally made no bones about the blatantly religious reasons they wished to display the commandments;
- the Casper, Wyoming, city goverment has scheduled a special meeting on October 28 to deal with the particularly nasty mess they've created for themselves;
- and Tennessee loses its collective mind, one county at a time: The idea comes from Greene County in East Tennessee, where the commission unanimously passed a resolution called ''A Proclamation Supporting the Recognition of God as the Foundation of Our National Heritage.'' Greene County Mayor Roger D. Jones has since sent out the resolution to the other 94 counties in Tennessee.
Ah, life in these United States. Ain't it grand?
Posted by iain at 12:28 PM
Parent protests use of football players in police lineup (Star Newspapers, IL, Thursday, October 23, 2003): Rich Township High School District 227 officials say they are dealing with parental complaints about Rich East High School football players who were used in a police lineup without parental consent. Former Chicago Heights mayoral candidate the Rev. Lawrence Blackful said his 14-year-old son, a member of Rich East's sophomore football team, received $20 from the Park Forest Police Department to stand in a lineup last week. Freshman football coaches involved in the incident violated school district policy by allowing the students to leave football practice to participate, according to Anita Howard of District 227. She said it was the freshman team coaches who were involved with the lineup. Howard said district officials have dealt with the issue, but she would not elaborate on the specifics of any disciplinary action as it is a personnel matter. She said school officials did not sanction the activity, adding that it was unacceptable.
Good grief. What in the name of heaven were they thinking? You do not involve juveniles with the police without parental consent. People with brains would not do this in any situation where the students might be wrongfully (or, worse, correctly) identified as the suspects in a crime; the lack of parental consent, and the fact that they were never read their rights would irretrievably contaminate any identification.
Policy of slipping students into police lineups reeks (Chicago Sun-Times, October 23, 2003) BY MARY MITCHELL SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST: Cordell Chavers, a 14-year-old freshman at Rich East High School in Park Forest, was proud of himself when his mother picked him up after football practice on Oct. 14. "I made $20 today," he said. "We helped the police out. We were in a lineup."
Marilyn Chavers was stunned. Then she was furious. Chavers said she drove her son back to the Park Forest Police Station and demanded to see the Police Chief, Francis G. DioGuardi. "He was on another call. I left the $20 with one of his officers and told him my son shouldn't have taken it."
Apparently, Park Forest Police officers have been paying juveniles at Rich East High School to be in lineups for years. If the juveniles agree to participate, the arrangement is not illegal, said a spokesman for the Cook County state's attorney. "But it shows horrible judgment and is totally inappropriate if police are picking up kids and not telling them what it is about," spokesman John Gorman said. "Nobody can find any statute that makes what they are doing illegal, but that doesn't make it right."
You know, I can't imagine that this could possibly be legal. There is probably no statute that says, "Oh, by the way, you're not allowed to put juveniles into police lineups without parental consent," but dealing with juveniles in the legal system is generally so tightly restricted, I can't imagine that anyone with a functioning brain cell thought that this was legal. I can't imagine that anyone with a functioning brain cell thought that there would not be a high price to pay when word of this got out. I can't imagine that anyone with a functioning brain cell thought that this wouldn't eventually become public knowledge.
The mother said she contacted Brian Knutson, superintendent of District 227, and Reginald Brown, principal of Rich East High School, and neither official responded to her complaint. The next day, she went to the high school and demanded a meeting with Brown. She was told he could only be seen by appointment, Chavers said. She did get to meet with the associate principal, Ronald Bean. "He told me he didn't mean to make light of it, but that 'we do this all the time,' " Chavers said. "My son is 14 years old. I think he is at football practice, but he winds up at the police station. The school has some kind of connection with the police station, and when the police need somebody for a lineup, they come up to the school."
Both Brown and Bean are African-American. Chavers said she was shocked that the black educators allowed black male students to be put into police lineups. "If they were white people I probably could have understood it a little bit better," she said.
Ah. There, I will disagree, slightly. I suspect that white administrators would have had a better sense that they simply would not survive doing something this boneheaded. There is simply no way they could remove the suspicion of racial discrimination. (For that matter, surely there was crime committed by white juveniles in Park Forest. It's a suburb, after all. Yet the white football players weren't asked to participate in the same type of lineup, it seems. How very odd.)
Knutson and Brown claimed they had no knowledge of the lineup, and that Chavers never contacted them. Neither statement rings true. How could school officials not know?And if Chavers called local TV stations -- and me -- it is reasonable to believe she also called school officials.
Indeed. Rich East officials are clearly in full spin mode. And doing it very badly, one might add.
Posted by iain at 11:13 AM
My word. ABC News has noticed the problem that Chicago has with our Englewood neighborhood. (Interestingly, somehow, nobody noticed Englewood when it had between three and five serial killers running through the neighborhood. But I suppose that's not relevant.) ABC did a piece on Englewood as part of their "Critical Condition" series on health care, this time on Nightline.
Of course, they do get one or two facts wrong.
ABCNEWS.com : Chicago Suburb Fights Own War (ABCNews.com, Nightline, October 20/21, 2003): Americans are randomly shot, assaulted and murdered in broad daylight, on a daily basis. The number of victims continues to increase as violence erupts without warning. Many on patrol question how long they have to be there and how bad will it get before they leave.
This is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan. This is the war on a different kind of terror, much closer to home, the kind that has been afflicting residents of Englewood, on Chicago's South Side, for decades. In Englewood, there are more gangs dealing drugs, more murders, and more shootings — not to mention more sexual assaults — than just about anywhere else in Chicago. The alarming number of sexual assaults will surprise no one in Englewood since there are more registered sexual predators living in this neighborhood than anywhere else in the city.
Englewood isn't a suburb, it's a neighborhood within the city. That, however, is a very minor quibble, and it's not a mistake that they made on the broadcast show itself.
Within the televised piece, they also repeated the vile calumny in which two young children were accused of raping and murdering an eight year old girl. It was proven without the case even going to court that those children could not have murdered her, that they were too young to have raped her. (To be sure, they did not directly repeat the information themselves. They rebroadcast one of the old local news items from before the boys were proven not to have committed the crime. Still, it's clear that they did so for the sensational value, to illustrate the crime problem. Otherwise, they could have run with one of the many later pieces that simply noted that the murder of a child was still unsolved. Shoddy, shoddy work to do that.)
Leaving those factual issues, the piece itself was very interesting. I hadn't realized the depth and breadth of the situation in Englewood, or the things that people were doing to try to fight it.
As it turns out, WBEZ/Chicago Public Radio did an indepth series about local health care in 1999, called simply Examining Health. (RealPlayer required to listen to the shows.) WBEZ did a piece specifically focusing on that beleaguered community, called Community Health in Englewood" (again, RealPlayer requird), which also mentioned the things happening at St Barnard's hospital. Many of the things discussed in the Nightline piece come well after the Chicago Matters radio piece, obviously.
The Nightline piece is weirdly short, for something that's a half hour long. Of the 22 minutes devoted to programming in a half-hour show, they seemed to spend about 17 minutes outlining the problems, and only four minutes discussing the various things that people were doing to work with the issues. (One minute to pump tomorrow night's piece and the other things in their unified presentation of the problems with health care in the US, from Good Morning America through World News Tonight and then to Nightline. It was a very busy promo.) It was just enough to tease you with the concept that people were doing something, but not enough to let you know how well it seemed to be working.
Posted by iain at 12:39 AM
You have GOT to be kidding.
Anti-gay protest to be held at Mepham H.S.; counter-rally also scheduled (News12 Long Island, 10/20/03): An anti-gay group from Kansas plans to hold a protest outside of Mepham High School next Monday. Members of the radical religious group called the Westboro Baptist Church claim school officials are promoting homosexuality. Group members say that is what led to the alleged sodomy of several junior varsity football players at a preseason training camp in Wayne County, Pennsylvania.
So let me get this straight-ish: By sending the kids to a football camp, where a few of them for some unknown reason decided that sticking pine cones up someone's butt repeatedly was a fun thing to do, the public schools are promoting homosexuality.
Well. My goodness. If that promotes homosexuality, just imagine what the various hazing rituals in the military promote -- you know, things like pounding the wings into someone's chest when they receive them, dumping all sorts of gloppy stuff over them when they cross the equator for the first time, stuff like that there. One can but only wonder.
In slightly more sane news on the matter ... well, OK, your definition of sanity may vary.
Vocal parents threatened (Bellmore Herald, October 17, 2003: It appears that the Bellmore-Merrick community won't be free of threats and scare tactics any time soon. In the wake of sexual-assault charges against three Mepham High School varsity football players, a parent named Terry called the Herald to express her concern regarding the safety of her child. ... Terry said that one of the alleged attackers has recently been seen hanging around Mepham, off school grounds, during the day. She believes the former football player, who is suspended from school and now faces criminal charges, may be trying to intimidate ninth-graders who may have witnessed the attacks. ... Terry's account comes after three local residents received threatening letters warning them that if they did not remain silent, they too would be sexually assaulted with a broomstick. ... Jim Rullo, of North Merrick, got a letter. The family of one of the victims asked him to read a statement at a recent meeting of the Bellmore-Merrick Central District Board of Education. In the statement, the family called for Mepham's coaches to resign for their failure to protect the victims, who were allegedly attacked during a football camp in Preston Park, Pa. According to Rullo, the threatening letter said, "Keep your mouth shut and nothing will happen to you or your family." Rullo said the letter, which he turned over to police, was hand-written in black ink and bore a Queens postmark.
All things considered, I suppose that's entirely to be expected.
History of hazing? (Bellmore Herald special report, October 17, 2003): Jane, the mother of a former Calhoun High School wrestler, was eating breakfast on the porch of her Merrick home recently when she had a talk with her son that scared her to the bone. ... Jane told her son she knew about the attacks. "What did you hear?" she asked him.
He laughed, she recalled, a "nervous laugh."
"What's so funny?" Jane asked. "He said, 'Mom, this happens all the time.'"
A feeling of dread ran through her. "Are you talking about sexual attacks?"
No, her son replied. "Everybody gets beat up," he said. "The seniors always beat up the freshmen."
Jane said, "My family was almost in tears."
... OK, what planet does anyone live on that they don't know that this happens? It happened in my day, my mother has told stories that let me know it happened in her day, it probably happened to some degree in our grandparents day. Granted, back then it was merely getting picked on and beaten up, as, in fact, "Jane" hears from her son. But how on earth would you not know that?
Nassau County Legislator David Denenberg (D-Merrick), who authored the county's "Good Sportsmanship Law," recently appeared on NBC's "Today Show" to discuss the alleged attacks. Denenberg described the district's three high schools -- Calhoun in North Merrick, Kennedy in south Bellmore and Mepham in North Bellmore -- as "great" learning institutions. "If something like this happened here," Denenberg said, "it can happen anywhere."
Um ... no offense, guy, but I'm pretty sure that, with variations on the pine cone offense, it happens pretty much everywhere. The only thing unique about this situation -- and who knows how unique, really? -- were the implements used, the damage done, and that the damage done caused the incident to come to light.
To a person, Bellmore-Merrick athletes said hazing doesn't happen on their teams.
And if you believe that, boy, do I have loads of swampland in Florida you'd just love!
Hearing scheduled for teens in hazing case (Wayne Independent, October 17, 2003): Wayne County District Attorney Mark Zimmer announced Wednesday that a certification hearing for the three juveniles charged in the Mepham High School Football Camp case will be held Wednesday, Nov. 12 at 1 p.m. in the courtroom on the 4th floor courtroom at the county courthouse. [...] On October 6, Zimmer announced that he planned to file a petition in the Court of Common Pleas to have three Long Island high school football players tried as adults.
Earlier he stated that three members of the Mepham High School Football team have been charged as juveniles for the alleged sexual abuse of younger players on the team at Camp Wayne for Girls in Preston Park. The allegations include sodomy of the younger players by older team members using a broomstick, pine cones and golf balls. The charges against all three juveniles are based on multiple counts of the following crime: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse; aggravated assault; kidnapping; unlawful restraint; false imprisonment; terroristic threats; criminal coercion; simple assault; reckless endangerment; ethnic intimidation; and multiple counts of criminal conspiracy to commit many of the above crimes. [...] The certification hearing will be held before Wayne County President Judge Robert Conway and he will determine if the suspects should be certified as adults or, being amenable to rehabilitation, as juveniles.
... Adults aren't "amenable to rehabilitation." Hmm. Well, in any event, it'll be interesting to see what comes of this. Apart from the fact that Pennsylvania is, as a whole, known to be resistant to this sort of upgrade of the charges, this is also a first offense for most, I should think, so it's probably fairly unlikely.
Posted by iain at 05:11 PM
Purely an FYI moment:
ABC7Chicago.com: Free meningitis inoculations offered in Chicago neighborhood: The Chicago Department of Health has begun offering free inoculations against bacterial meningitis to gay and bisexual men on the city's North Side. The free vaccinations began Sunday in response to a recent cluster of meningitis cases which has caused three deaths since Wednesday. Dr. John Wilhelm, the city's health commissioner, said laboratory test results received earlier Sunday confirmed that four of the six cases reported so far were from a bacterial strain for which there is an effective vaccine. The health department has ordered 7,500 doses of the vaccine, at a cost of $50 per dose, and is prepared to obtain more, officials said.
From what I've seen, one of the innoculation locations is on north Halsted near Buckingham, next to Sidetracks.
Posted by iain at 03:37 PM
My goodness. Apparently, California's recall idiocy is catching. Who knew?
Wisconsin state senator who faces recall asks state Supreme Court for delay: A Democratic state senator who faces a recall election this week for siding with Republicans on a veto override asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday to delay the vote. Sen. Gary George asked the court to delay Tuesday's primary vote so it could review his lawsuit seeking to cancel the election outright. An appeals court had already turned George's lawsuit down. George's opponents started the recall effort this spring after he sided with Republicans in a vote to override Gov. Jim Doyle's veto of a bill that would have given lawmakers final say over gambling compacts with American Indian tribes. The override effort failed.
Mind, there does seem to be some confusion as to why State Senator George is actually being recalled.
ON WISCONSIN : JS ONLINE : NEWS : MILWAUKEE : George recall election generates little interest among voters (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Online, Oct. 12, 2003): ..... The Milwaukee Election Commission projects that fewer than 9% of the more than 88,000 registered voters in the district will cast ballots. And some residents in the district are saying that even that estimate may be optimistic. ... Challenges in Dane County Circuit Court and the state Court of Appeals have left many voters with little or no awareness of the primary or the campaigning now under way. The first of a series of town hall meetings held by George drew no participants. ... Some attribute the lack of interest to the fact that the recall effort was long stalled in court. Others point to the lack of agreement on why George is being recalled. Is it the result of a single issue, such as George casting a vote with Republicans against expanded gambling compacts for Indian tribes? Or is it George himself and the feeling among some of his constituents that he has grown aloof from the district and no longer represents issues that matter to them? Some have even charged that he no longer lives in his district and maintains a primary residence in Grafton.
The problem with any one of those above reasons, aside from the rather surprising lack of interest being generated, is that a recall is the proper venue to decide only the last one -- and THAT only after a court has determined where, in fact, Mr George lives; if he does in fact live in the district, then the recall loses justification on even that issue. The proper venue to get rid of Mr George would be in either the normal primary or general elections, not in this recall. And whatever his flaws, it would seem that Mr George's constituents are not motivated to get rid of him during the normal electoral process. Hence, this attempt to subvert the whole thing.
Assuming that the projections for voter turnout are accurate, this election looms as more profoundly antidemocratic than California's recent gubernatorial circus, if less visible and less generally important. It's possible that the fate of the representation of a district of 88,000 voters could be determined by fewer than 8,000 of them, a small minority by almost every definition. And all of it seems to point to a reluctance by the losers -- in this case, losers in George's own Democratic party -- to abide by the results of elections, or to wait for the next election in which they can be vindicated. The advantage of recall mania -- on those occasions when you can get the affected constituents to notice that there actually IS a recall, that is -- is that it allows you to do an endrun around the process. For example, as a moderate-to-liberal Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger would probably not have survived California's Republican gubernatorial primaries; the primaries tend to favor the extremes of either party, since the more extreme voters are the ones who bother to vote in primaries. (Which would explain why both parties tend to wind up with presidential candidates that can't in any reasonable way be said to represent the bulk of their party. But I digress.) And Mr George was unopposed in his party primary; thus, there originally was no primary.
To be sure, this seems to be something of a special case. There actually does seem to be a general election occuring on November 18, in which Mr George would have run unopposed. Since Mr George was also unopposed in the primary, this seems to be something of an "Oops! We forgot to run!" recall. (The opponent, state Rep. G. Spencer Coggs, seems to be having quite a few of those moments, actually. Refusing to debate is one thing, but not showing up after you've committed to doing so -- and problems witn campaign literature would seem to be a piss-poor excuse for ducking a debate -- would surely be an indicator of manifest unfitness for the position.)
One wonders how long it will be before politicians tire of being at the voters' beck and call in quite such an insane way, and decide to rewrite some of these recall laws. Surely, at a minimum, recall thresholds need to be raised, and actual, concrete reasons should be given. (Granted, reasons were given for California's recall. They didn't amount to much, but they were given, and Davis had the chance to respond on the circulated petition.)
Either that, or we go all the way to a Max Headroom type candidacy. Vote through the interactive television (which doesn't quite exist yet, but never mind that) on how you feel about your representatives at that very second. Nonstop votes of confidence. We'll have the eternal campaign and government will be effectively both paralyzed and pandering. It'll be useless, but ever so entertaining!
Posted by iain at 02:59 PM
And just when it seems the whole issue of the death penalty in Illinois seems to have backed off to a quiet simmer, a slow bubble, the Illinois Supreme Court wakes up in a bitchslappin' mood.
CNN.com - Prosecutors slammed in case involving Chicago officer's slaying - Oct. 17, 2003: In a sharp rebuke of prosecutorial misconduct, the Illinois Supreme Court on Friday ordered new trials for two men convicted in the 1995 slaying of a Chicago police officer. The high court threatened to overturn more cases to stem what it called the "alarming frequency" of misconduct by Illinois prosecutors. "We mean it as no hollow warning when we say that prosecutors risk reversal of otherwise proper convictions when they engage in conduct of this kind," Justice Philip Rarick wrote in the court's opinion. During the trial, the court said, prosecutors wrongly riled up jurors' emotions by showing them a headless mannequin wearing the bloodstained uniform of Daniel Doffyn, the slain officer. Jurors were also allowed to view the uniform while they deliberated.
To be sure, prosecutorial misconduct, especially in death penalty cases, has been one of the Illinois Court's particular betes noires for some time now. The court has advocated making public the names of prosecutors accused of misconduct. For example, the court hasn't been terribly kind to the Cook County prosecutors, either, although somehow, being spanked by the Illinois Supreme Court results in promotions in this county. Apparently, the Cook County states' attorney's office may regard this as a mere rite of passage. But I digress. The legislature has, to date, declined to act on the court's recommendation. Given that a rather surprising number of legislators and other officials are current and former states' attorney prosecutors, this is hardly surprising.
Aside from today's bitchslapping, another interesting death penalty case is lurking at the court.
Brown's lawyer challenges death penalty (Daily Herald, October 17, 2003): State defense attorneys have chosen the case of a Brown's Chicken suspect as the battlefield for a renewed assault on the state's death penalty system. In their first salvo, lawyers for suspect Juan Luna have subpoenaed all 102 state's attorneys in Illinois - as well as nearly every piece of information they possess on every first-degree murder charge brought since 1998. In short, Luna's lawyers, who like prosecutors are paid by taxpayers, are hoping to undertake what might be the most comprehensive review yet of thousands of recent murder cases. [...] Luna and James Degorski are charged with murdering seven people in the Brown's Chicken and Pasta restaurant in Palatine in 1993. Prosecutors want both men executed. According to a flurry of court records filed this week, Richards is looking to challenge the state's capital punishment system on the grounds that state laws allow too many ways for convicted murders to be targeted for death. Reform advocates have argued for years that the state casts too wide a net in its 20 factors making a suspect eligible. The factors include murder by shooting out of a car, murdering a community police volunteer or paramedic, murdering someone over 60 in a cruel manner, murdering someone while committing any of 15 other felonies such as armed violence, and committing premeditated murder, which the state Supreme Court has ruled can include planning for as little as three hours to kill someone. Richards needs such a massive number of records, he argues in court papers, because that's the only way to figure out how wide the net truly is.
The Illinois Supreme Court has been so disturbed by the administration of the death penalty in this case that they may very well try to find some way to let this study go forward. If this review finds evidence of localization and capriciousness of the death penalty -- if, say, the same crimes with the same approximate aggravating conditions consistently produce death sentences in Springfield courts, but rarely do so in Chicago -- then there might be grounds for permanently suspending enforcement of the penalty and declaring the state's current death penalty to be unconstitutional. To be sure, although people are receiving death sentences again after Ryan's moratorium, to date, Blagojevich has yet to lift the moratorium, so nobody's being executed. (It would take a while, in any event. The first new death sentence was issued late last year or early this year, and with appeals of right still to come, it has to get through the state appeals court, then the state supreme court, then maybe shift over into the federal courts should there be any federal grounds for appeal. It'll be a time yet.)
Posted by iain at 04:18 PM
CNN.com - Microsoft plans Windows overhaul to fight hackers - Oct. 16, 2003: Stung by criticism over lax software security, Microsoft Corp. disclosed plans Thursday to update its flagship Windows operating systems early in 2004 to make consumers less vulnerable to hackers. [...] Microsoft promised to improve the way in which Windows manages computer memory to protect users against commonly exploited software flaws known as buffer overruns, which can trick Windows into accepting dangerous commands. Some of the most damaging attacks in recent months fall under this category. The company promised to improve its built-in firewall feature, which has drawn criticism in the past because it was not especially strong and was routinely turned off in new copies of Windows. The update will automatically turn on the updated firewall and enable companies to centrally manage each computer's protective settings. [...] Critics have said Microsoft releases far too many patches, which frustrate employees responsible for installing them on hundreds of computers throughout companies and which can interfere with other programs already installed. [...] Microsoft promised to begin distributing these repairing patches monthly, rather than weekly, and making the patches easier to install and to remove when they conflict with existing software. The company said it still would rush out an emergency patch midmonth if it determines hackers were actively breaking into computers using a software flaw it could repair immediately.
Well, isn't that good of them? Heaven only knows that all those frequent patches are just a pain in the rear, aren't they? And less frequent patches may contribute to ... hmm? What's that you say?
Microsoft warns of 4 new 'critical' Windows flaws (CNN, October 16, 2003): Microsoft Corp. warned consumers Wednesday about four new flaws in its popular Windows software as the company shifted to monthly alerts for serious problems that could let hackers break into computers. In particularly embarrassing disclosures, Microsoft acknowledged problems in its technology to authenticate software publishers over the Web and in its Windows help and support system.
Note also that Microsoft released, on October 14, an "update rollup", containing the previous 22 security updates for people who hadn't previously patched their system. The new updates, on the Windows update site, carry the date of October 14. The four new updates are not included in the "update rollup".
Well. Yes. Quite.
As you were, then.
Posted by iain at 01:39 PM
All I can say is, god bless cheap irony.
Supreme Court to Consider Case on 'Under God' in Pledge to Flag: The Supreme Court added the Pledge of Allegiance to the docket for its new term on Tuesday, agreeing to consider whether public schools violate the Constitution by requiring teachers to lead their classes in pledging allegiance to the flag of "one nation under God."
The justices, who begin their daily sessions with heads bowed as the marshal intones "God save the United States and this honorable court," accepted a case that, like the affirmative action and gay rights cases of the last term, places the court at the center of a public controversy. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has made clear his view that the pledge is constitutional, will not participate, raising the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie.
Regardless of Scalia's participation, one wonders how the Court could possibly strike "under God" from the pledge and then retain its daily prayer or, for that matter, the Congressional Chaplain, who does much the same thing. That said, unless the Court was prepared to strike the language, the only real reason to have accepted the case is so that they may, yet one more time, reverse a decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That said, as amended, it would seem that the decision from the Ninth Circuit would be essentially unarguable.
In an amended opinion issued this year, the court narrowed its ruling by confining it to the public school context, invalidating school policies that required teachers to lead willing students in the pledge.
The students' willingness or lack thereof would not seem to be a proper issue for consideration. After all, elementary school students, for the most part, simply do what they're told. Beyond that, it would seem improper to force teachers to lead students in the pledge, or to force students to recite it. How meaningful is a forced pledge?
Posted by iain at 03:27 PM
Remember Texas? You know, that state where the governor and Republicans in the Senate were trying to ram through a reapportionment bill over Democrat protests, up to and including fleeing to another state? They very kindly decided to back off the national stage for a while, in order that the lunacy in California could distract people from the fact that the Democrats had decided that the more effective way to fight the case would be to let the law pass, and then take it to court. And my goodness, but Texas has finally let a promisingly entertaining little genie out of its hellish little bottle, hasn't it?
HoustonChronicle.com - Texas lawmakers' job finally over -- but not the hard feelings: The Texas Senate ended a third special legislative session Sunday with a final shudder of partisan anger as it sent Gov. Rick Perry a Republican congressional redistricting plan. Perry has said he will sign the redistricting bill, which is designed to give Republicans a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. Democrats have vowed to challenge the plan in court. There also was some cross-rotunda sniping Sunday as the House sent Perry a sweeping government reorganization bill. Some House members complained that the bill was passed under threats that the Senate would kill the redistricting bill.
So let me get this straight-ish: the Republican-dominated Texas Senate threatened the Republican-dominated Texas House by saying that if the House didn't pass the governmental reorganization act, the Senate would kill the redistricting act. My, but politics in Texas are peculiar, aren't they? I mean, in most states, you just don't have parties threatening themselves in quite this way.
... Lawsuits to halt the use of the plan in the 2004 elections are expected to be filed before this week is out. "We believe this map is not fair. We believe this map is not legal," said Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio. Democrats claim the map dilutes minority votes in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. [Lt. Gov. David] Dewhurst said he believes the map will withstand federal court scrutiny. Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, said he believes Democratic governors across the nation will now feel obligated to do congressional redistricting in their states to make up for the seats lost to Republicans in Texas. "We let the redistricting genie out on the entire country," West said.
To be sure, this is only true if the plan survives the courts. First, it needs to survive Justice department review, given that Texas is still under the Voting Rights Act consent decree. Given that the concept of the current Justice department giving this anything more than cursory review before approving the plan is utterly laughable, again, that throws it back into the courts. Regardless of who wins or loses the first and second rounds of court battles, this will certainly make it to the Supreme Court. (Where, of course, the ever so impartial Justice department will weigh in on the side of the right of Texas to do its reapportionment however and whenever it pleases.) Other states may be likely to hold off until the Court decides before making too many efforts in this direction; after all, if the Court shoots Texas down, then they'll have wasted all that time and effort. On the other hand, if the Court gives Texas' antidemocratic little plan its blessings -- which is not terribly likely (one hopes) -- then the interesting question will be: in Democrat-leaning states, can the Democrat governors and legislatures reapportion enough seats in enough ways to make up for the loss of Texas' seats, or even exceed them? Put another way: is it possible that, eventually, Texas' desire to strengthen the Republican majority in the house could actually lead to its loss? (And purely a side note: if this goes through, it's likely to lead to a very impressive kerflaffle in California, as the Democrat dominated house and legislature tries to remake their national representation. Just imagine the fun as the lege tries to convince Republican Arnold to sign that bill.)
Why, one might wonder, is it likely that even if the Justice department signs off on the plan, the Supreme Court may shoot it down?
Travis caught in remap crossfire (Austin Statesman-American, October 9, 2003): .... "My goal was to defeat as many Democratic incumbents as possible in order to give us five or six additional seats," said state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, the House's chief mapmaker. "I would suspect that (any Democrat) who is not in a minority district would have a very competitive race." [...] The map unveiled Thursday allows Republicans to increase the GOP base for U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, by moving Democratic-leaning Latinos out of his district. To protect against criticism that the move harms Latinos' voting rights, the mapmakers paired those voters with some Central Texas voters in a new, Latino-dominated district that runs from Central Texas to the Mexican border.
It turns out that partisan gerrymandering is one of the specific grounds for challenging a redistricting plan.
How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court Peter S. Wattson, Senate Counsel, Minnesota: ... Partisan Gerrymandering is a Justiciable Issue: ... Davis v. Bandemer involved a legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Indiana Legislature in 1981. Republicans controlled both houses. Before the 1982 election, several Indiana Democrats attacked the plan in federal court for denying them, as Democrats, the equal protection of the laws. The plan had an overall range of 1.15 percent for the Senate districts and 1.05 percent for the House districts, well within equal-population requirements. The plan's treatment of racial and language minorities met the no-retrogression test of the Voting Rights Act. The Senate was all single-member districts, but the House included nine double-member districts and seven triple-member districts, in addition to 61 that were single-member. The lower court found the multimember districts were "suspect in terms of compactness." Many of the districts were "unwieldy shapes." County and city lines were not consistently followed, although township lines generally were. Various House districts combined urban and suburban or rural voters with dissimilar interests. Democrats were packed into districts with large Democratic majorities, and fractured into districts where Republicans had a safe but not excessive majority. The Speaker of the House testified that the purpose of the multimember districts was "to save as many incumbent Republicans as possible."
That said, partisan gerrymandering isn't grounds for succeeding in a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice White, held that the issue of fair representation for Indiana Democrats was justiciable, but that the Democrats had failed to prove that the plan denied them fair representation. The Court denied that the Constitution "requires proportional representation or that legislatures in reapportioning must draw district lines to come as near as possible to allocating seats to the contending parties in proportion to what their anticipated statewide vote will be," since, if the vote in all districts were proportional to the vote statewide, the minority would win no seats at all. Further, if districts were drawn to give each party its proportional share of safe seats, the minority in each district would go unrepresented. Justice White concluded that: "[A] group's electoral power is not unconstitutionally diminished by the simple fact of an apportionment scheme that makes winning elections more difficult, and a failure of proportional representation alone does not constitute impermissible discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. . . . Rather, unconstitutional discrimination occurs only when the electoral system is arranged in a manner that will consistently degrade a voter's or a group of voters' influence on the political process as a whole. (Emphasis added.) . . . Such a finding of unconstitutionality must be supported by evidence of continued frustration of the will of a majority of the voters or effective denial to a minority of voters of a fair chance to influence the political process.
THAT said, it does look like the Texas plan would fail that test. The plan was specifically designed to frustrate the will of the majority of Texas voters, who decided of their own free will to send Democrats to Congress when they could have sent Republicans. Not only that, but because the Texas Legislature did not hold public hearings on much of the process, that would seem to be effective denial -- not only to a minority of voters, but to all voters in Texas -- to influence a substantial portion of the political process.
In any event, the appeals are likely to be somewhat expedited, given that they're intended to take effect before the next election. It will somehow need to get to the Court in time to have a final opinion issued no later than March, when the Texas primaries take place.
An interesting side issue: According to the New York Times article (registration requred), Texas voters are understandably livid about what's been done to them without their consent. The Republican members of the Texas lege have quite possibly handed their voters a club with which they may well be beaten out of office. Even if the gerrymander stands and results in reliably Republican districts, the voters may decide that, yes, Republicans are quite nice ... just not THAT one.
Posted by iain at 12:50 PM
Apologies for the silence this past week. Life got a bit unexpectedly busy.
Also, note that for the time being, despite the appearance of the form on older entries, comments have been disabled on the site for the time being. Some lovely person from Russia has been burying this site (and several others) in spam. They've been posting under the names "Underage" and "Lolita", so you can guess what sorts of things they've been posting. I may or may not turn on comments again sometime in the future, but for now, theyre disabled on this site and on Media Relations.
Posted by iain at 10:24 PM
Just when you think that the reverend can't sink any lower, he demonstrates that there is no depth to which he will not descend in his zeal to pursue his small-minded and bigoted agenda.
Anti-gay minister proposes monument denouncing Shepard - billingsgazette.com: An anti-gay preacher from Kansas wants to erect a monument in a city park celebrating the death of gay University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard five years ago. The Rev. Fred Phelps has led protests in Casper and Laramie on the anniversary of Shepard’s death since 1998, when Shepard was lured out of a Laramie bar by two men, kidnapped and beaten into a coma. Shepard, 21, died at a Fort Collins, Colo., hospital five days later. Police have said he was targeted in part because he was gay. His attackers were later convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. In a letter sent to Casper officials Thursday, Phelps said he wanted to erect a stone monument in City Park with a bronze plaque bearing Shepard’s face and an inscription reading "Matthew Shepard, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God’s Warning: ’Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind; it is an abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22." Phelps said he wants the monument in Casper because it is Shepard’s hometown, where he learned it is "OK to be gay."
To be sure, that's vintage spew from the man. Nothing terribly new there, although the fact that he's willing to go to that expense is impressive.
No, the impressive part is that apparently, if they follow through with their current plans, the city of Casper, Wyoming, will not be able to do one damned thing to prevent the monument from going up.
Phelps has proposed putting the monument in a part of City Park officials are considering selling in order to avoid the removal of a Ten Commandments monument that has drawn fire from another religious group. The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has threatened legal action if the city does not remove the Ten Commandments monument. Earlier this week, the City Council decided to explore selling the park land rather than removing the monument despite opposition from some councilors, who fear it will draw interest from people like Phelps. "I think (the Ten Commandments monument) should be there, but I am voting to remove it if it has to be for this very reason, for the prevention of people like Phelps," councilor Renee Burgess said. Others said they would not be persuaded by hate to remove the Ten Commandments monument, which has sat in the park since the 1960s.
Of course, in part, this depends on who buys the parkland from the city. One suspects that the reverend will make a devoted effort to buy the parkland himself, and if he has the high bid, the city council will be unable to stop him, no matter how distasteful they find his plans.
All of this because essentially, the Casper city council does not seem to believe in the separation of church and state. My.
Actually, given the way the article concludes, he may well just buy some private property in the city -- probably through a second party, just to make life easier -- and put up his monument in any event. And then the city will have the entertaining time of finding legal grounds with which to get it removed.
Posted by iain at 04:36 PM
Detainee's Case Goes to Supreme Court (Findlaw/AP, October 2, 2003): The Supreme Court was asked Wednesday to consider if the government has unconstitutionally imprisoned an American-born man captured during the fighting in Afghanistan. Yaser Esam Hamdi is being held in a naval brig in South Carolina, without access to attorneys and without charges being filed against him. "The man's been locked up for two years," said Frank W. Dunham Jr., a federal public defender who filed the appeal on his behalf. "He wants an opportunity to be heard in court. It goes right to the heart of our liberties." The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that the government has wide latitude to detain people caught fighting against the United States on foreign soil during wartime, without giving them traditional legal rights. Dunham told justices in a filing that the appeals court not only "embraced an unchecked executive power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected of being affiliated with enemies, but it also abandoned procedural safeguards designed to promote truth and fairness." The Bush administration has maintained the detention is constitutional and important for national security. The administration has about a month to file a response in Hamdi's case. So far, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any cases stemming from the terrorist attacks and the government's war on terror.
And I don't expect that streak to be broken by this case. Even if the court didn't somewhat favor the administration on this specific case -- and somehow, I suspect that they do -- the fact that Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan may persuade the Court to keep away from the case. The Court is likely to give wide lattitude to the administration in dealing with people captured on foreign soil. (That said, I should think that the four-member liberal minority on the Court finds this administration's handling of detainees and their rights very distasteful indeed. But that may not persuade them to touch this case.)
That said ... one does wonder if the administration may in fact have erred by imprisoning Hamdi in the continental US, rather than at Guantanamo. As an American citizen on American soil, while the government may be able to treat him as a foreign combattant in other ways, they may at the least be forced to allow him access to a lawyer and civilian courts. If they had kept him at Guantanamo, the Supreme Court might just have shrugged and said, "Hey, foreign soil, what'cha gonna do?", which is the federal court system's response to anything to do with Guantanamo. His actual location may force the situation in some way or another.
The case that is more likely to be taken up, whenever the appeal makes its way to that level, will be Jose Padilla's. (Remember him?) He was a US citizen, taken on US soil, and the activities with which he was charged were arguably legal at the time. (It was not, and technically is not, illegal to argue for and discuss the forceful removal of the US government. It is illegal to make the attempt. As I recall, at the time, the CIA opinion was that Padilla and his friends had engaged in nothing more than "loose talk".)
The appeal by the 660 Guantanamo detainees is even less likely to be taken up. They're not American nationals, and they're not on American soil per se. The Court will almost certainly hold that it lacks jurisdiction to decide their cases.
It will be interesting to see if, with all these cases, the Court decides to set guidelines for the administration's treatment of "enemy combattants", since the administration's general plan seems to be, "Stick 'em in a prison somewhere and hope the world forgets about 'em." It may well be that, while they would normally decline Hamdi's case because of how it originated, that they might feel that they have to turn to the government and say, "You know what? A national emergency does not give you unlimited license to mistreat American citizens, no matter how dire. You may not hold someone indefinitely without trial. You may not hold someone indefinitely without allowing them access to lawyers of their choosing, or court-appointed counsel. You may not suspend the right of habeas corpus for selected persons at your whim."
One can but hope, in any event.
Posted by iain at 06:33 PM
RainbowNetwork.com - Excommunication For Americans?: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, will face demands from over half the leaders of the Anglican communion to excommunicate the American church over its decision to appoint an openly gay bishop. Of a total of 38 primates, 22 believe the appointment of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire earlier this month was wrong, revealed The Sunday Times. At an emergency summit in October on gay issues, the group will insist that unless the Episcopal Church of the United States reverses its decision then they should be considered out of communion with the Anglican world, a decision that can be taken only by Williams.
My goodness.
You know, I always thought I'd see a formal schizm within my lifetime. It would be primarily a divide between the Americans and the Europeans, and it would be over sexuality and related issues.
I just thought it would be the Catholic Church, and not the Anglicans and Episcopals. And I thought the issue would be more over women, and the rights of clergy to marry, and not over whether or not to ordain celibate gay ministers.
The interesting question is, how much will American Anglicans and Episcopalians feel that they owe to the Church of England. Will they feel that this is an issue that should lead to the break? Will they feel that the break would have come anyway, so might as well get it over with?
I make you a prediction: if M. l'Archbishop of Canterbury does make any type of movement to excommunication -- and given his history on this particular issue, I rather think that he won't, unless he's confronted with some sort of outright rebellion in the dioceses (which would put them in violation of their vows of obedience -- naughty, naughty!) -- if the archbishop is actually cornered into taking some sort of action, at the first sign of any serious repercussions, the bishop in question will likely resign. Which will be a pity, really.
Purely a side note: I wonder if the Anglican church retains the power of the formal interdict. It would be an interestingly antique intermediate step for them to take, if so; the last general local interdict from the Catholic church was in 1606. And does the Anglican Episcopal excommunication ceremony retain the bell, book and candle from the Catholic version. (Maybe if things get really medieval, and the American church continues to hold ceremonies after excommunication, they can be declared "contumacious and in contempt", just like Catherine of Aragon. And, peculiarly, for much the same reason.)
UPDATE, 6:50pm: OK, now while I did expect that the Archbishop would try to find some way out of this short of interdict or excommunication, I didn't expect quite this degree of desperation or cynicism quite so soon.
Secret paper reveals Church spin plans to defuse gay crisis (Daily Telegraph, London, October 1, 2003): The Church of England is trying to spin its way out of the crisis over the issue of homosexuality, according to a document drawn up by one of the Archbishop of Canterbury's closest advisers. Jeremy Harris, Dr Rowan Williams's secretary for public affairs, wrote a three-page memorandum, entitled Notes towards a Handling Strategy on Gay Issues, outlining how the Church could manipulate the media. Mr Harris is a former BBC journalist with great influence at Lambeth Palace. In the "strictly confidential" document, which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph, he said: "In addition to attempting to manage the gay issue strategically, there is at least the challenge . . . of displacing it at least partially from public and media attention. "This involves, principally, finding attractive alternative stories involving ABC [the Archbishop of Canterbury] and/or the Church." Among other ideas, he suggests: "ABC as poet - do a reading, make a high-profile Lords intervention, announce a theology prize." [...] The overall tone of the document suggests that senior aides are deeply worried that the homosexuality issue could disrupt the Archbishop's agenda by dominating the news coverage of the Church. It says: "The Church is committed to continuing dialogue, so the issue cannot be closed or rapidly resolved. It therefore has to be managed in media terms by seeking to take the sting out of it and displacing it in the public mind." The issue of homosexuality is described as "hydra-headed". The document says: "The monster cannot be slain with a single sword thrust, but steps can be taken to try to render each of the heads less dangerous."
Somehow, this really strikes me as being past the stage of being defused by media management. When a majority of your dioceses are saying, "We do not agree with this," and are on the edge of open dissension, then the media are perhaps not the greatest of your problems.
Posted by iain at 06:51 PM
Senators press for billions for Iraq to be a loan / Bush, GOP leadership want taxpayers to pay for rebuilding (SFgate.com, Senators from both parties are pushing the idea of turning a big chunk of the $20 billion President Bush wants for the next phase of rebuilding Iraq into a loan, but face opposition from the administration and Congress' Republican leadership. The $20 billion is part of the $87 billion package that Bush wants Congress to quickly approve to pay for continued U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraqi reconstruction and for improved security. It seems sure that Bush will get the money, perhaps even more, because few members of Congress want to be seen as abandoning the 120,000 service personnel occupying Iraq under tough conditions.
You have GOT to be kidding. Congress seriously wants to a country which we bombed the infrastructure out of to pay for the privilege of being rebuilt? They want a country already saddled with reparations and other debts that it will almost certainly never be able to repay to take on a loan for which it was not responsible?
What the hell is WRONG with those people?
It's not just Democrats. Some conservatives, suffering from sticker shock over Bush's added budget request, also like the idea. "I believe oil in Iraq ought to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, not the American taxpayer," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., as he introduced his plan to create an Iraqi reconstruction finance authority at the Appropriations Committee meeting.
You know, that would be reasonable if Iraq, or even the people currently in charge of what remains of the country, had actually been responsible for the destruction of the country. But guess what? It wasn't their bombs, and it wasn't their artillery. Moreover, if you want to pull this out to the extreme, it wasn't even their fault that the surviving infrastructure was in such rotten shape to begin with, unless you want them to pay for not having revolted against Saddam Hussein in the first place. (And with the extremely prominent examples of the last rebellion resulting in thousands dead, promises of assistance and aid betrayed, and Saddam firmly in place afterward, what sane person would even try? Why would they try?)
I swear, sometimes I think that every person in Congress needs a good bitchslappin'. (Actually, I think that most of them need daily bitchslappin' most of the time, but you'd need to have some sort of mechanical bitchslapper, because otherwise your hands would get tired and sore, and slapping 500-odd idiots -- even those particular idiots -- just isn't worth that.)
Posted by iain at 02:15 PM
