Archive for March, 2005


Thursday, March 17th, 2005

Ladies and gentlemen, the best composer alive.

Link away. We have work to do.

finger on the button

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005

On another note, there’s a great piece on Salon today which asks if W & Co. are not just hostile to the bugaboo “liberal media” but actually out to destroy the institution of the press, in order to remove truth as an obstacle to policy and obliterate the foundation of a democracy, informed debate about the facts of our world.

I think that’s exactly what they’re up to. And between this, and the Ten Commandments stuff, and the fighting the accord on women stuff, and everything else, I’m getting that panicky call-Air-New-Zealand feeling again. I don’t want to be here anymore. Can’t all the good, smart, caring people just pack up and go? Let the ignorant, tyrannical Pharisees have their Jesusland. See how they like it when the blue staters that subsidize their sprawling oppression leave them to pay the bills for their folly. Let them fight the damn war.

I swear, I’m thisclose.

Here’s the thing, though. They’ve got nukes. I mean, forget Tehran – who here thinks they haven’t done recon on Paris?

So this is what it’s come to: We’re being kept here at gunpoint. Or, you know, missilepoint. How could we leave the Armageddon option in the hands of this crowd? I’d bet anyone here a dollar that the stencil on the button has been changed from “Launch” to “Rapture.” N’est-ce pas?

i am the lord thy dog

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005

So there’s tons of coverage of the Ten Commandments case at the Supreme Court, with lots of good insights like the fact that these displays all use the Protestant version of the Decalogue specifically, not Catholic or Jewish versions, which certainly suggests an endorsement of a particular religion. And, I mean, can the people praying and singing Amazing Grace on the courthouse steps really think they’re helping the argument that this isn’t about religion? How transparent can they be?

But here’s the point I haven’t seen made yet. The excuse being used inside the chamber is that this is about the Ten Commandments being the basis of our law, saying this is a historical fact. Even if that’s true, and I think it’s pretty debatable, shouldn’t we be extra careful about separating church and state when we’re talking about the law? I mean, when they say that “In God We Trust” is ceremonial and historic on our money, and not really about religion, I think there’s an argument to be made there (not that I agree with it, but it’s there). But to say the foundation of our law is God’s Top Ten Dos & Donts? Isn’t that exactly what the Establishment Clause is about? How on earth can it be okay to claim, on courthouse walls and lawns, that our law comes from God? I mean, seriously. Am I missing something? Are they claiming that the Ten Commandments aren’t really from God? That Moses just made them up, and used the God thing for cover?

This makes me crazy. Because apparently something like 75% of the country thinks putting these things on our courthouses is fine. How can this not be obvious?