Modern Geekery

Apparently, someone needs to re-read the Bill of Rights

In case you're not following the minor controversy over the season finale of South Park, let me fill you in. The South Park crew released an episode that is in very poor taste, astoundingly vulgar, and hilariously funny. Par for the course, I'd say.

In this case, however, they chose to make fun of the Catholic Church, an institution that I'd say is eminent deserving of the jest. The Catholic League responded by prevailing upon a Catholic member of Viacom's board of directors to remove the episode from re-runs. This is pretty underhanded, but society has a way of routing around that damage: you can now download the episode from the internet and enjoy the humor.

What is more disturbing is that the head of the Catholic League is quoted as saying, “Already, we are being deluged with hate mail that is as obscene as it is viciously anti-Catholic. All because we exercised our First Amendment right to request that Comedy Central not offend Catholics again! But we’re used to such things and will not be deterred.”

Now, lets look at this. There are two ways to read that statement, the first of which is that he apparently believes he has a First Amendment right not to have people poke fun at his religion. That's clearly ludicrous and I can't believe that he's that stupid. The second is that he believes that pressuring a board member of a media company to censor a television show is "freedom of speech." That's just as ridiculous. Are people in this country so ignorant of their basic freedoms that no one questions this statement?

In any case, thanks to BoingBoing for the link.

This just in: Texas outlaws marriage

Without making too many snide comments about the apparent intelligence of 76% of the Texan voting populace, I will point out that the following language contains interesting implications:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

While the intent of the bigots who wrote this amendment is clear, the text as it is written bans all marriage. Texas is now forbidden to recognize anylegal status identical to marriage, and since marriage is identical to marriage, it must be forbidden. I'm just astounded.

I predict that Jon Stewart is going to have field day with this one. I hope this causes Texan politicians to rethink the value of their educational system, but I'm not holding my breath.

Political State Report

If you aren't familiar with it, I recommend that you take a look at Political State Report. This neat little political weblog is dedicated to the political climate and races on a more local level that what we see in the daily news and on television.

This blog relies on local correspondents from different political parties in each state and makes a serious effort to remain nonpartisan - or at least multipartisan. The blog as a whole, however, seems vaguely center left, possibly due to the fact that the blogosphere tends to not sample the hard core right-wing, or perhaps because it was spawned from my favorite political blog, Daily Kos. It's been educational for me to get the views of folks in what are considered battleground states this year. One disappointing thing for me has been the lack of coverage on North Carolina. I complained a bit about this and wound up as a correspondent. Fun!

Congratulations

My most heartfelt well-wishes to all those Massachusetts couples who are, for the first time, able to enjoy the legal benefits of their couple status. This is one small step in the right direction.

The courage of their convictions

I've listened to the mass media spin on John Kerry's campaign vs. Howard Dean's campaign. Apparently, Kerry is trying to spin himself as a populist candidate, aping the success of Dean's well-motivated and highly networked campaign. The media has latched onto this with interest, since they've realized that Dean will not play their little games with them, pandering to the Fourth Estate's self-importance. On the contrary, Kerry is the consummate insider, and someone with whom the media feels comfortable.

For all of you who are not aware of it, there is a website that every single voter should read before entering their polling place. It is OpenSecrets.org - the website that aggregates and publishes campaign contributions data. In five minutes at the website, something very fascinating about the Kerry vs. Dean debate becomes apparent. John Kerry receives the largest fraction of his campaign contributions from the group entitled Lawyers and Lobbyists. That's quite fascinating for someone who claimed in New Hampshire to "stand against the special interests." On the contrary, Dean received the largest fraction of the donations from the category called "Other".

"Other" apparently includes the members of his own campaign organization, Dean For America, who are currently in aggregate the 6th largest contributor to Dean's campaign. One does not see this level of dedication from the Kerry campaign. Kerry's top contributors tend to work at banks and law firms, not universities and state governments, like Dean. One can easily draw the conclusion that Dean supporters tend to have the courage of their convictions. What does that say about Kerry's supporters? And by inference, what does it say about the two candidates? Everyone who is voting in the Democratic primaries should consider this carefully.

Short, sweet, and to the point

Those of you still nattering at me about my outrage over the arguments used by the fundie loonies and their supporters against allowing a certain segment of our population to enjoy the same civil rights that said fundies do should read this.

Edit: The Indy Star removed the article. Lame. The punchline was a letter to the editor of the paper pointing out that Britney Spears' 24-hour marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, whereas a committed gay couple doesn't.

Defense of what?

For all of you fundie types who really have gotten bent out of shape about the thought of homosexual couples sharing the same economic benefits of partnering that you do, someone has written a draft constitutional amendment that you should review carefully before making any more attempts at violating the principle of separation of church and state.

Make no mistake, the sacred institution of marriage and the legal entity of marriage are two entirely different concepts that by unfortunate history carry the same name. Expanding law to end an unjust economic discrimination against a sizable group of Americans in no way infringes upon your religion. Got it?

The lunatics are running the asylum

Kevin Drum, who writes the Calpundit blog, has dug up and analyzed the Texas Republican party platform from the year 2000.

While I think that he has perhaps overestimated the innocuousness of the Democratic side of things, this document should be a wake-up call to all libertarians and other fiscal conservatives who occasionally vote Republican, even though they do not support the Republican Party's social agenda. The wake-up call is this: now, more than any time since the days of the Moral Majority, the social conservatives are running the show in the GOP. The fiscal conservatives have little to no voice in the party, as is evidenced by the GOP's profligate spending and general fiscal irresponsibility. (Hint: General tax cuts do tend to push more money into the economy. Tax cuts that don't materialize for 5 years, and then only for people who can pay high-priced accountants to figure out their rules don't do fsck all for anyone.)

Now, more than ever, I think it is time for the moderates in both parties to stand up and be heard. While I certainly realize the difficulty of being an "extreme moderate," I think that recent events, including the popularity of Dr. Howard Dean and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger have shown that the voting populace is dam' tired of "business as usual."

On the Election

I have watched with great amusement the reaction of some folks to the California recall. For some, this has been an excuse to indulge in a great deal of vituperation against every thing that they find egregious and abhorrent about modern politics, usually at the expense of a fellow who's only crime has been to win an election. Others, more sensibly, have taken the opportunity to reflect upon the chain of cause and effect that led them to this point.

Larry Lessig comments that while the recall provision is a bit wacky, the results are completely democractic. Dan Shafer echoed these sentiments, commenting that Californians had "allowed participatory democracy to go too far". The key idea here is that this recall vote was a shining example of the type of direct democracy that Californians, via their Constitution, wished to receive. It also, amusingly, is a classic example of what de Tocqueville referred to as "mob rule." Shafer, among others, is calling for an immediate recall petition to be filed against Schwarzenegger, despite the fact that the man received more votes for Governor than Gray Davis received to remain in office. (As an interesting side note, Schwarzenegger's popular vote percentage in this election - 48% - was higher than Bill Clinton's 43% in the 1992 election vs. Bush Sr. and Perot.)

California's liberal Democrats need to be asking themselves some hard questions about the failures of this season. The libertarians among us should also be asking themselves some hard questions about the nature and scope of the American democracy.