recent tracks:

Of Changing Winds

It is beginning to feel like fall here, which makes me very happy. I've been missing football lately more than I had in college, and I think the two items might be related--the midwest doesn't do seasonal transitions quite like the east coast.

This weekend, Summer and I hung out with other neuroscience types, attended a showing of The Seventh Seal, the Ingmar Bergman film which established the "guy playing chess with death" precedent which I find very interesting, and got Petey some innoculations. As for the film, it receives my stamp of approval, as it contains some thought-provoking dialogue (in Swedish!), a mix of excellent and over-the-top acting, and some lovely images and ideas.

Earlier in the week we attended The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which I both enjoyed and found more frightening than I expected.

As far as other domestic happenings go, things are relatively quiet. Summer and I got mixing bowls and wooden spoons yesterday. We continue to make and consume delicious meals, including a Saturday night feast of coconut-ginger soup, pad thai, and sake. School is manageable for both of us, and Summer seems to be off on a good foot, having given a well-received presentation on "internal oscillators" which establish circadian rhythms without even having to rely on the presence or absence of light! I am still waiting to be called on for Socratic dialogue in any class, but I am feeling very on top of all my material. School keeps me busy with functions to attend and work to do during the day, generally allowing for rather peaceful evenings.

Incidentally, further regarding the cats, Petey took his shots quite well and was back to lap-sitting and purring later in the afternoon, while Nory went on a kitten-rampage last night, skidding back and forth across the floor and attacking Summer's and my feet well into the wee hours of the morning, then leaving a shredded tissue on the ground for us to wake up to.

That's your update for now; here are some excerpts from a rather famous case regarding a statute requiring students to recite the pledge before it even contained the phrase "under God." To affirm key American values and contrast them with those of repressive fascist regimes, Justice Jackson wrote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 640-2 (1943) (emphasis added):

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing.
[...]
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. ... If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. ...
We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

There you have it.

P.S. Thank you for the further information regarding the Presbyterian Church. Once further discussion has clarified the mud puddle of my mind, hopefully I'll be bringing it up again. In the meantime, I'll likely be moving your comment to the main page soon.

Of Churches and Gay Rights

Some priests approve of the Pope's pending ban on homosexual priests.

Some nearby don't feel the same way.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) currently refuses to recognize the ordination of homosexuals, but some of those presbyteries are working to change that.

Unfortunately, there are There are lots of presbyteries.

That said, the issue is somewhat more complicated and interesting. I am not thoroughly-enoughed informed to report on many aspects of the conflict, but I do know that many presbyteries ignore the rule. New Castle Presbytery , for example, does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Concord, which my family attends, is a member of the New Castle Presbytery. Here is a picture of my brother on a roof. He likes the ladies, but he is active in the church and supports gay rights. Maybe the Pope and the official Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) should learn from him.

I would enjoy it if any other family members who are more informed than I on the subject would consider sharing more material on the subject, either by commenting or providing material for another post sometime. I seem to recall rumors of a potential split in the church and various other things which get muddled together in my head. In any case, though, I am heartened by progressive forces within the religions that form so much of the basis of American culture, and although I don't imagine that any audience wider than my own friends and family reads my thoughts, I do think that any effort to promote and expose progressivism from within the church has some value. Stuff like this--a girl being expelled for having gay parents--is too common, and the voices that make that sort of statement cry out for countervoices of reason and tolerance.

Of the Supreme Court

"Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy." Apparently the Washington Post agrees with me, more or less, now that the dust from the hearings has begun to settle.

This, however, is interesting:

[T]he line of questioning that Mr. Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is Judiciary Committee chairman, chose to pursue offered a window on the increasingly troubled relationship between the court and Congress, as well as on one of the most consequential developments of the Rehnquist court's later years.

In a series of decisions, many written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist himself, the court declared unconstitutional acts of Congress that had been passed by broad bipartisan majorities.

Laws permitting public employees to sue state employers for discrimination on the basis of disability and age, and also giving women access to federal court to sue rapists for damages, ran up against the court's new definition of the limits on Congress's power and the justices' insistence that they alone have the final word in interpreting the Constitution.

It seems that the media pushed Sen. Biden's line of questioning while ignoring the weightier material of Sen. Specter's implied critique of the late C.J. Rehnquist, whose seat on the court will almost certainly now come into Judge Roberts' possession.

What I've gleaned from all this: the more information about Judge Roberts becomes is unearthed, including his refusal to discuss many topics in the Senate hearings, the more basis there seems to be to distrust and perhaps even flat out disapprove of him. Nevertheless, he seems plenty intelligent, and will probably be a step up from his predecessor, so I guess that counts for something. We citizens get only a secondhand say in the matter, anyway, so my basic point in approving of the appointment is that I'll understand if Sen. Biden votes to confirm Judge Roberts. Hmm, think that's likely? Sen. Biden-for-President-2008 voting outside party lines? Well, anyway, I'll understand if Sen. Carper votes to confirm.

[A sidenote: isn't Sen. Biden's attempt to be the Howard Dean of the 2008 Presidential race by crafting an outraged leftist image and getting loads of media coverage for himself kind of hilarious? I can't wait to see how he tries to succeed where Dean failed (in actually gaining the Democratic nomination) AND defend himself when the whole plagiarism thing comes up...]

And some good news in that President Bush is meeting with folks from both sides of the aisle to consider J. O'Connor's replacement.

Of Football

Although the local Fox affiliate assured me last week that it would be broadcasting the Eagles game today, it seems to have changed its mind and elected instead to show an infomercial. I would much prefer to have seen TO's long touchdown receptions, Westbrook's running, and Lito Sheppard's various big plays. Ah well, at least I've been able to gleefully observe the stats continuing to accumulate.

Speaking of Fox letting me down, I still haven't been able to dig up so much as a quote from that O'Reilly Radio Factor. Alas, you may just have to deal with a calm, cool, and collected Max for a bit.

The weekend has seen housecleaning, homework, time with Timmy and Delphina and Summer's grad folk, The Life Aquatic and The 40-Year-Old Virgin (both worth seeing, in my estimation, the latter somewhat surprisingly so), and chilling out. Probably the rest of the afternoon will see some combination of football and homework, the latter dominating the after dinner hours.

Cheers.

Of "Liberal" Media

The overtly and disgustingly liberal New York Times headline screams, "Judge Backs Case Seeking End of School Pledge".

David Stout begins the article: "A federal judge in California declared today, in a ruling that virtually guarantees another long and emotional battle in the courts, that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional."

Not once does Stout correctly state the holding in the case, as bloomberg.com does: "Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento, California, today said that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with the phrase 'under God' is unconstitutional."

There is a sharp distinction between the meanings of the phrases "the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional" and "a school district's policy requiring the pledge ... is unconstitutional." (emphasis added)

The "liberal" media distort this issue the way they almost always do in church-state issues, presenting the ruling of the courts (which is completely accurate and in line with the Constitution) as some activist conspiracy to banish religion from the public square. The actual ruling merely prevents the state from indoctrinating children into any sort of theist religion, thereby prejudicing them against atheism.

Remember, any willing child is free to recite the pledge as he or she pleases. The school simply can't force an unwilling child to proclaim his or her belief in a divine steward who guides our nation.

Most people could probably see the logic of this ruling, but many would nevertheless oppose it because American culture generally rejects not just atheism but atheists.

Examples:

1) In February 1964, when the landmark Civil Rights Act was being debated in Congress, the House of Representatives passed a measure by a vote of 137 to 98 that explicitly excluded atheists from protection under the new law that would otherwise abolish employment discrimination. (Eddie Tabasch, Free Inquiry Magazine 2004)

2) Americans are relatively positive about people of other faiths, but they tend to look more negatively at those without faith. Atheists, in particular, are viewed unfavorably by a 54% majority, with people in the South and Midwest taking an especially negative view. (The Pew Research Center 2002, p. 11)

3) At the same time, significant numbers of Americans say they would be reluctant to vote for a presidential candidate ­ even if generally well-qualified ­ if the candidate was a member of a specific faith. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim for president, and 15% express concern about voting for a well-qualified evangelical Christian. Far fewer say they would not vote for a Jewish (10%) or Catholic (8%) candidate. But fully half say they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist. (The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2003)

4) We didn't ask that question specifically this year, but one question in the poll speaks to it: 72% of our respondents agree that a president should have strong religious beliefs. That would suggest a reluctance to vote for someone who does not. Indeed, in our poll last summer found -- as polls for the past 40-50 years have shown -- that a significant number of people (50%) say that they would not vote for an atheist for president... more than say this about a Muslim or any other religious group. (Luis Lugo and Scott Keeter, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2004)

5) People once cited "studies" about low intelligence and criminal propensity to justify bigotry towards blacks. Today, people find "scientific" reasons to be prejudiced towards atheists. (Austin Cline, about.com 2005)

Enough on that for now.

***

Incidentally, some more liberal media. Actually, just look here--this says it all.

Of Grammar and Gay Marriage

This is heartening news, but this

Perhaps the best indication that support for the amendment -- which was already eroding -- is in free fall are the number of lawmakers abandoning their support of the measure.

is some of the worst grammar I've read in any major medium. The best indication are the number? Ouch. At least the Mass. legislators seem to have their act together. Here's a nice quote from Rep. James Brendan Leary, D-Worcester: "It's a dangerous precedent to take away rights that have been granted by the court for an identifiable group of people," he said. "It's not simply a policy issue. It's a question of how we use our constitution."

In other news I'm kind of hungry and will likely have lunch soon. Further slated for this afternoon are a library research assignment, brushing up on my Criminal Law, and hopefully putting some work into my 4-case analysis so I can chill and watch the Eagles soar tonight. And, in case you were wondering, yesterday was a nice mix of watching a bit of football, hanging out with Summer and the cats, and grocery shopping, all topped off with a touch of homework.

Lenore?

The one to your left.

***

Update:

Lenore is about 10 weeks old and healthy.

She seems to have an extra toe on each paw! And we still just call her kitten or little kitty most of the time, hence the question mark. I think the name "Lenore" might stay, though.

She is very nice, and a little rambunctious. She loves Petey but he seems ambivalent/annoyed right now. He also really wants to eat her kitten food.

We watched a zombie movie with her this evening. Well actually I watched and Summer slept. Kitten purred. Petey came in and out.

Laveranues is also well, incidentally. He produces much less waste than the fish did.

Of Gay Marriage

Thank you, Arnold. (Another article from the same stub)

"Leave it to the legislature," they say.

Arnold and his other executive counterparts can't veto the courts.

***

A rarity: an elected member of the executive branch claiming he wants the issue decided by the courts. I guess Arnold agrees with me that the courts should be allowed to lead the way ahead of the legislature on issues of civil rights?

That said, I'm pretty sure that even my approval of the judiciary flexing its muscle to protect minority rights does not mean that I'd veto the legislature's attempt to bring about the same result. There's something fishy going on there, Arnold...

Of Life and Timelines

Now we have this [timeline] (and this [information]), but also this [conflicting timeline]. Then you read this [declaration of state of emergency, Louisiana Governor's Office], and the previous (anonymous) post [conflicting timeline] is called into question--the declaration of a state of emergency is dated to Friday, while the anonymous post claims that President Bush was still begging the governor to declare Louisiana a state of emergency on Saturday.

So...who knows? The internet is such an incredible vehicle for both information and misinformation. Hopefully the investigation will reveal what went wrong and what will need to be fixed.

Incidentally, I do laud the eventual response--the President calling for aid money and the incredible community response that has Universities accepting displaced students, housing complexes accepting displaced families, shelters accepting displaced pets--the country really does seem to have come together, once they figured out what was going on.

***

Summer and I had a nice Indian dinner this evening with Dave and Faye, Petey's old people. It's good to start getting to know people in town, and they seem like fine people. Plus I even talked to a couple people at school today! Shocking, I know.

Contracts class was painful, as the Professor engaged in delightful Socratic dialogue with two people who didn't understand the basic facts of the assigned case. Legal Methods, though, is always delightful. I did, however, get a lesson in the extent to which I need to modify my writing to fit proper legal writing.

Now I will begin to prepare a paper for next Wednesday, hopefully applying material from that lesson. Wish me luck.

Of Politics!

Gay marriage in CA?

I had a lot on my political slate last week and just couldn't get it organized into a cohesive bundle. I even started on two posts that never made it. I'll mention them in a nutshell but try instead to focus on the nice things happening around the country--things like the above article, and like the great hospitality and generosity that so many have extended to the victims of Ms. Katrina.

Nutshells:
1) An interesting take on Iraq.
2) Sean Hannity first claimed this statement to be a liberal press indictment of President Bush:

Not since he sat in a Florida classroom as the World Trade Center burned a thousand miles away has President George W. Bush faced a test quite like the one he has now returned to Washington to confront.

(Note that it could actually be interpreted as sympathetic to the President to anyone not crying wolf about the liberalism of the press).
Sean Hannity then called out New Orleans Mayor Nagin for these remarks, claiming the mayor was trying to shift blame, and acting very un-Giuliani-like. I intended to point out that the Mayor's blame was correctly placed, given that the Governor did not call in the federal government nor take significant steps to aid New Orleans on time to save quite a few lives, that the federal government did not take the prerogative to provide aid without first getting the Governor's permission despite the crisis situation, that the aid provided by the federal government was poorly executed and likely cost quite a few lives, and still furthermore that some blame may be laid correctly on the President himself:

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

This is not "politicizing" the disaster for liberal gain; this is placing blame squarely on the shoulders that deserve it, perhaps for the benefit of other likely disaster sites which might have had their funding slashed to make room for the war. I feel Mayor Nagin has done an impressive job handling a situation involving likely 2-3 times the deaths of 9/11, without any appropriately patriotic channel for his anger (i.e. damn those terrorists and liberals!), and in which he had basically no resources with which to help his constituents until the highers-up heeded his calls for help.
3) Whoa. Rehnquist died and Roberts is likely to replace him as Chief Justice. I don't even know what to think of this yet.
4) But in related news, I
a) hope that Alberto Gonzales is not the next Supreme Court appointee. I tend to be anti-torture.
b) am curious whether the race angle of the federal government's failure to respond promptly to the situation in New Orleans (or "George Bush doesn’t care about black people," as Kanye West so delicately put it) will factor into this next appointment. That would make Gonzales an obvious choice, albeit one I (again) would pretty clearly oppose. But at any rate, it's an interesting political angle to consider. I wonder whether RWU will be abuzz with this latest development...
5) Mr. Slabaugh has a few more valuable links for your consideration.

So that was a little more extensive than I intended this time around, but less than I originally intended, so I guess it all averages out. I am particularly curious about how the President deals with all these intertwining situations in the coming days. I have heard plenty of talk about how he has expended way too much political capital in his failed Social Security reform and the ever-less-popular war in Iraq, and so the nation's position on Iraq (which have become remarkably more difficult to read up on in light of the events surrounding the hurricane and the Supreme Court) might even be affected by the President's drop in approval rating after the hurricane, and his other judicial appointee might have more trouble passing, or might have an easier time if liberal interest groups spend too much money fighting Roberts--ah the excitement of politics!

As for me, vacation's over and it's back to class tomorrow. Summer and Petey are well, and you'll likely be hearing more on the personal front soon. 'Til then, peace. And don't forget to read about gay marriage.

Weekend Update

I've had lots of things swimming around in my mind about which to write a more essay-like post or two, but I'll save them for later.

In the spirit of the long weekend, I'll instead tell you what I've been up to, and a little about our newest addition to the family.

Sooooo Thursday when Summer got back from some crazy Neuroscience function, we took the long way to get to the apartment where Petey used to live, see if we would get along, and figure out details with his former owner Dave. Friday after classes and such, Dave brought Petey over, and the cat sped around the apartment checking everything out and being generally freaked out. Dave and his companions headed out rather depressedly, and Petey hid under the bed while I made dinner.

Later on, Petey came out and displayed the personality he has shown since then, flopping about and begging for belly rubs, following me and Summer around the apartment, and generally being a nice guy. His only issue seems to be an intense fear of outside noises that I think is what causes rather brief nightly crying spells.

But aside from that, on Saturday Summer and I wandered out to find a few more supplies (a deeper litterbox than I had originally picked up, a brush, a tag and collar), and also had a delicious Portuguese lunch at Solmar--I had pasta with clams and sausage. After dinner I ran off to pick up Jean, Timmy, and Timmy's roommate Joe for some fun social time over here--all that seemed to go well, too, and it turns out Joe has a photographic memory when it comes to Rocko's Modern Life.

So then yesterday Summer and I wandered over to Timmy's to meet him and my former Centro roommate Ari and get lunch at a wraps place on Thayer St. which was delicious. We chilled until they took off for a party in New Hampshire, and Summer and I witnessed an accident on the way home and I got to give them a statement--oh boy!

Later that evening, after dinner, we split a little thing of ice cream and watched Better off Dead, which contained probably my favorite movie moment I've observed this year--a creepy fat kid with a balloon running to break up John Cusack and his French girlfriend-to-be when he loses the balloon, pauses to jump after it, then continues running. That's my kind of humor.

Today we are hoping to find a not-too-crowded beach, I think. Wish us luck.

Peace.

Petey!