Social But Not Secure

While some conservatives are ecstatic over GodGreenspan's apparent endorsement of private Social Security accounts, Paul Krugman explains why, despite his long-standing reputation for temperance, we shouldn't assume the Fed chairman to be non-partisan.

You'll also want to listen to this interview Terry Gross did with Krugman about Social Security in which he efficiently dismisses many of the myths being promulgated by the administration.

Blinky Bill

Apparently, the folks who syndicate Bill O'Reilly's column would prefer that you not link to his columns. Specifically, they want this guy to stop linking to this column. Someone should explain to them that "Hypertext Linking does not violate Copyright." It's the very definition of the World Wide Web, ya'll.

(Via Boing Boing.)

Decablogging

It's interesting to hear the Supremes whinging about how difficult it is to strike a balance with the Ten Commandments issue. In fact, like Scalia, who unsurprisingly has no problem with the commandments being on display, Justice Kennedy sees no need to disrupt the status quo:

"If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a courtroom filled with spectators. Banning the Texas display might "show hostility to religion," he said.

How is it that the arguments of a Supreme Court judge are so easy to dismantle? "If an atheist walks by," Justice Kennedy? What if a Muslim, Hindu, Confucianist, a Quaker, an Amish person, an agnostic, a New-Ager (any left?), a plain old non-believer, or even a liberal Christian walks by? The Ten Commandments needn't apply to *any* of them. Or, in the case of the Amish, they may be offended by the display of the commandments as a "graven image," which those very commandments forbids. Additionally, it needn't be a matter of offense. It's simply a matter of representation. The Decalogue does not *represent* all Americans. The Constitution does. Place monuments to it outside every courthouse--fine. Kennedy's argument is a radical oversimplification.

Also, he suggests that banning the Decalogue might "show hostility to religion." No, sir, it would show respect towards ALL religions. I mean, seriously, are all of the arguments for keeping the commandments on display this easy to dismiss? And what is a Supreme Court justice doing reaching for them?

I don't think this is a hard decision to make, and any decision need not even ban all display of the Ten Commandments. Maybe I should make the decision for them: No, you cannot display a list of commandments, which apply to the followers of a single religion in a public building, unless the commandments are placed in their context along with other systems of law.

Some examples? Huge Decalogue Monument standing alone outside the court. Nope. Too clearly making a statement. A series of pictures depicting various moral codes with the depiction of the Ten Commandments front and center, larger than the rest. Nope. Too obviously making a statement. A frieze depicting various codes of law, including the Decalogue. Fine. Of course, if those are the conditions for display, then many of the most fiery advocates for displaying the commandments will no longer wish them to be displayed. Because the point they're trying to make *is* a religious one.

Justice O'Connor disappoints, too:

"It's so hard to draw that line" between allowing a legislative prayer and not allowing a Ten Commandments display, O'Connor fretted at one point.

It ain't hard, Ms. O'Connor. Of course, prayer shouldn't be allowed in the Congress. Unless it's a personal prayer said by an individual in his seat or in a private gathering. I'm not allowed to begin meetings at the bank with a prayer. Why should the government, which is supposed to represent all citizens begin its proceedings with a prayer?

Back to the commandments and another subject: You might argue that our law can be traced back to the Ten Commandments, so it's a fitting metaphor for our system of law. If so, why stop there? Why not go back to the Code of Hammurabi, which the Decalogue clearly built upon? Obviously, because the point being made is a religious one.

The Relevance of the 10 Commandments

There's an ongoing furor over the display of the 10 commandments on government across the United States, and the matter is now before the Supreme Court. A common complaint is that our laws were based upon these commandments and that therefore we should bestow upon them some special sort of recognition and prominence. But why?

What relevance do the 10 Commandments really have upon our common rule of law today in the United States? Let's have a quick look at each commandment.

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." - This certainly isn't governed by U.S. law, is it? In fact, you can be sure that many Americans worship other gods, both literally and figuratively (mammon anyone?) with great freedom. So why would we want a commandment placed on public property that says otherwise?

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." - Not at all governed by U.S. law either. Additionally, as many have noted, this commandment is the one perhaps most often broken by Christians. Crucifixes, images of Mary and Christ--all of these things could reasonably be considered graven images. Americans are free to make any sort of graven image they like, so why would we want a commandment placed on public property that says otherwise?

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain." - Certainly not governed by U.S. law. Additionally, though many people now assume this commandment refers to swearing or literally speaking God's name, it more likely referred to not making contracts lightly in God's name. This may be a sensible commandment to follow if more out of decency or in pursuit of integrity, but since it's not U.S. law, why would we want a commandment placed on public property that says otherwise?

4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." - Not at all governed by U.S. law. If taken literally, most Christians don't adhere to this commandment, since they attend church on the first day of the week, not the last and they don't rest at all on Saturdays. Americans are free to attend the church, synagogue, mosque, etc of their choice or not, so why would we want a commandment placed on public property that says otherwise?

5. "Honour thy father and thy mother." - Certainly not a U.S. law. Additionally, are there not circumstances in which honor for one's parent might be unwarranted? Perhaps most of the time, this commandment would be an excellent guideline for living, but Americans are, in fact, free to dishonor their parents, so why would we want a commandment placed on public property that says otherwise?

6. "Thou shalt not kill." - This I'm sure we can all agree is an excellent commandment. At first glance. But what does "Thou shalt not kill" mean exactly? Does that include self defense? Does that include killing people in times of war? Does that include animals? The death penalty? Some would argue, perhaps convincingly, that the verse refers to murder. The truth may be somewhat more complicated, and many, many Christians disagree on the exact meaning of the verse. Arguably, our law not only allows killing in some cases, but it also *requires* some people to kill in certain situations. Nonetheless, I'm sure most would agree that as it pertains to murder, this is an excellent commandment, the principle of which most cultures would come to without having had any exposure to the Ten Commandments. Would it be worth posting this commandment in places if most people agreed that it applied to murder, which our country's laws certainly prohibits? Perhaps. On the other hand, most of our citizens probably don't need to be reminded that murder is a criminal offense in the United States.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Generally not governed within the United States, and largely ignored even in those states which supposedly prohibit it. No doubt an excellent guideline in many if not most places, though individuals may be able to make compelling cases for breaking this commandment in particular instances. (Interestingly enough, none of the 10 Commandments prohibit homosexuality. Can we safely assume that means God had more of a problem with adultery than homosexuality?) Rightly or not, adultery is commonly practiced in all 50 states and the laws against it are either non-existent or seldom enforced, so why would we want a commandment placed on public property that suggests otherwise?

8. "Thou shalt not steal." - Another excellent and sensible commandment for which many laws do exist within the United States. (That's 2 of 10 so far.) Apparently, however, this commandment originally referred to the theft of *human* property or slaves, so even its modern-day relevance may be questionable if one is to take the Biblical injunction literally.

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." A very sensible commandment to be sure, but not necessarily governed by U.S. law unless referring specifically to perjury in a court of law. If used in the sense of gossiping, back-biting, or lying in general, none of these activities are illegal when practiced in general life, however despicable they may be. Can we really justify placing a commandment on public property that suggests otherwise?

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." However inadvisable coveting another person's spouse or belongings may be, this activity is certainly not a crime in the United States by any stretch of the imagination. Most people are probably guilty of violating this commandment at one time or another. This commandment also possesses the unfortunate distinction of highlighting the Old Testament practice of considering a man's wife to be his property. It would hardly seem appropriate to place a commandment on public property that suggests that a woman is a man's property or that any laws exist in this country, which prohibit coveting. On the contrary, we have entire industries built upon the hope that men and women will "covet." Indeed, the very term seems quaint.

Having considered each of the commandments--even briefly--we can quickly conclude that they really have little relevance when compared to the American code of law and in fact contradict much of what we know to be true of our laws. It seems quite reasonable to say that it would be highly inappropriate to post these commandments in public places about the United States, when they so clearly do not reflect our country's culture or laws.

Perhaps placed among other historic examples of law (the Code of Hammurabi, for example, upon which, no doubt, the Ten Commandments were actually based) in an educational context, the appearance of the Ten Commandments might be appropriate, but standing alone and without context, they seem to suggest an influence upon the American judicial system which simpy cannot be proven or justified.

For more information on the commandments, consult this detailed listing of the commandments over at Religioustolerance.org, which I also consulted in preparing the above.

And another important question to consider: "Which Ten Commandments are the 'real' ones?"

Refresh Your Outrage

This extraordinary post by Jeanne d'Arc comes from her blog Body and Soul, the winner for Best Writing in the 2004 Koufax Awards. It refreshed the horrors of the Abu Ghraib scandal for me. Aside from being an excellent piece on the subject of torture and our tolerance for it, d'Arc's piece is a far better example of the value of blogging in my mind than any number of blogs nitpicking over the mainstream media's every utterance. It's the difference between the mob effect and Ms. d'Arc's clear expression of concern for humanity.

When it became clear that the "boys will be boys (and sometimes even girls will be boys)" spin had frozen mid-pirouette, the new story was introduced: Damn those idiots who make the rest of our brave men and women look bad. This is, I must admit, a definite improvement over the argument that torture is no big deal, but it's still immoral. The damage done at Abu Ghraib was done to Iraqi prisoners, to their friends and families, and to all Iraqis, who were sent a clear message about how our country treats their country. They are the ones who have endured, and will continue to endure, the pain. The "damage" to our military is secondary at most. After all the times we've seen the pictures, we still have a distorted view of who the victims are.

The most important thing to remember about the crucifixion of Jesus is not that it sullied the reputation of all the good Roman soldiers.

(Via Relentlessly Optimistic.)

"If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?" by Juan Cole won the Koufax award for best post and proves a must read also.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

Then there's this fascinating article about millionaire John Gilmore, who refuses to show ID when traveling within the United States. His point: the U.S. law which prevents you from doing so is a secret. That's right. You're not allowed to know about the law, which prevents you from traveling without an ID within the United States as a U.S. citizen. That regulation is described as "Sensitive Security Information."

"Are they just basically saying we just can't travel without identity papers? If that's true, then I'd rather see us go through a real debate that says we want to introduce required identity papers in our society rather than trying to legislate it through the back door through regulations that say there's not any other way to get around," Gilmore said. "Basically what they want is a show of obedience." ...

To some, Gilmore's argument is redolent of the conspiracy theories from the black helicopter crowd.

"That's the problem. How it sounds," Gilmore said. He waved his hands like some Cassandra: "They have all these secret laws! The UFOs are coming! They have guards at every airport!" Yes, he said, there is a certain odd flavor to the notion that someone shouldn't have to show ID to board a plane, but with magnetometers at the gates, guards with security wands, fortified cockpit doors and sky marshals abounding, Gilmore is asking just how much citizens are giving up when they hand their driver's licenses to a third party, in this case an airline, where it is put into a database they cannot see, to meet a law that, as it turns out, they are not allowed to read.

Interesting point, isn't it?

(Via Boing Boing.)

Mock Mini

My buddy Jon directed me to the Counter Counterfeit Commission, yet another sneaky and entertaining marketing ploy from the folks at Mini.

Remembering the Duke

The Nation reprints this sympathetic 1965 article by Hunter S. Thompson on the Hell's Angels. Thompson effectively demonstrates that the bikers were minsunderstood and misrepresented at the time they were first entering the national consciousness.

Also, via Ann Althouse here's a Tom Wolfe tribute to Thompson, which mentions the book that arose out of the above Nation article.

Wolfe also shares this hilarious story about the first time he met Thompson:

We were walking along West 46th Street toward a restaurant, The Brazilian Coffee House, when we passed Goldberg Marine Supply. Hunter stopped, ducked into the store and emerged holding a tiny brown paper bag. A sixth sense, probably activated by the alarming eyes and the six-inch rise and fall of his Adam's apple, told me not to ask what was inside. In the restaurant he kept it on top of the table as we ate. Finally, the fool in me became so curious, he had to go and ask, "What's in the bag, Hunter?"

"I've got something in there that would clear out this restaurant in 20 seconds," said Hunter. He began opening the bag. His eyes had rheostated up to 300 watts. "No, never mind," I said. "I believe you! Show me later!" From the bag he produced what looked like a small travel-size can of shaving foam, uncapped the top and pressed down on it. There ensued the most violently brain-piercing sound I had ever heard. It didn't clear out The Brazilian Coffee House. It froze it. The place became so quiet, you could hear an old-fashioned timer clock ticking in the kitchen. Chunks of churasco gaucho remained impaled on forks in mid-air. A bartender mixing a sidecar became a statue holding a shaker with both hands just below his chin. Hunter was slipping the little can back into the paper bag. It was a marine distress signaling device, audible for 20 miles over water.

Drawing out the Night

Just stumbled across this poem I wrote a while back, and it seemed to fit:

What do you do to draw out the night?

Is it muted voices swimming in the elastic blue flicker, quivering against your shadowed walls?

Is it wandering city streets, the buildings’ crystalline hive, watchful, the occasional pedestrian hurried?

Is it a dark and indifferent dive, thick, sweating glass resting against the curve of your palm?

Or a bright, clean station, redolent of meat and caffeine, cool enamel beneath your waiting palm?

Is it driving, driving swiftly through silent suburban streets, yellow streetlamps flitting overhead?

Is it your bed, your head inclined against a pillow cool, eyes slanted, the soft periodic shuffle of switching paper?

Why the long wait to turn out the light?

What do you do to draw out the night?


--Robert Stribley, 01/02

Out the Light

Anonymoses directs us to these scary right-wing t-shirts.

Interesting how one design replaces the Statue of Liberty's illuminating torch with a machine gun. An appropriate change for this administration, I suppose, replacing reason with violence.

Angel, Come from Way Above

Angel is the latest show to fall prey to the culture police. Something about heavy breathing and neck-biting. Never seen the show, but that does make me wanna watch.

The killjoys over at the Parents Television Council lost this round, thankfully. You'll be relieved to know Because of Winn Dixie gets their Seal of Approval, though "small or sensitive children might be upset by the discussion of Opal's mother leaving her and a thunderstorm that has Winn-Dixie very scared."

I've seen the previews for Winn Dixie, and, somehow, if I had kids, I don't think I'd need to consult with PTC before taking the littluns to see it.

Seeing Chris's Smile

Some of you may have been following my brother's recovery on the blog I started for him. I've updated it with the above X-ray and some new info. Thanks for keeping him in your thoughts and prayers.

Tangentially, a Google image search for "x-ray" serves up some pretty fascinating results.

Feelings! Nothing More Than Feelings!

As TNR's Noam Scheiber points out, Republicans are being told to trust El Presidente on Social Security because of his "practical experience," which tells him privatization "is good politics and policy." Aw shucks, I feel so much better about the whole thing now that you've explained that the Prez's confidence is rooted in his feelings. Never mind what those silly diversions like economic studies, statistics, American history, and common sense might teach us. Bor-ring!

Scheiber goes on to cogently explain why he thinks privatization may backfire on the Repubs. One can live in hope!

An affluent voter knows he's going to retire in relative comfort whether or not Social Security is privatized; for a voter who sees Social Security as his main source of retirement income, the prospect of exchanging private accounts for benefit cuts is pretty alarming. Recall here the political price congressional Republicans paid when they merely flirted with "slowing the growth" of Medicare in the mid-'90s. Put it all together, and it seems possible, even likely, that the practical effect of Social Security privatization would be to reverse the now-familiar trend of working-class voters ranking social issues above economics--a trend essential for maintaining a Republican majority in Congress.

Makes sense to me.

And just for the record, we all understand that many of the Republicans in favor of privatizing Social Security aren't at it with the intention of helping old folks in retirement, right? They want to privatize it because they want to privatize everything they can. Some of them would privatize government all together if they could.

Come to think of it . . . maybe they already have.

Free Mojtaba and Arash

Today is "Free Mojtaba and Arash Day." The BBC's Carke Boyd writes about the dangers of blogging in Iran.

Rock Scissors Oscars

Chris Rock's advice to Oscar winners:

Don't thank God. God's busy working on the tsunami, so leave him alone.

Works on multiple levels. And these folks complaining about Rock's dissing the Oscars--surely, they don't think the Academy didn't see that coming. All publicity is good publicity, folks.

RIP Hunter S. Thompson1937-2005

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. - Hunter S. Thompson

According to his son, Hunter S. Thompson shot himself at his home in Aspen, Colorado today. The writer, raconteur, mentor to Johnny Depp, and godfather of gonzo journalism was 67 years old. For some reason, I wouldn't have pegged him the type to go that way. On the other hand, he lived his life with such abandon, I supposed it's fitting that he should go out with a bang. You never do know the demons folks are wrestling with.

ESPN's Page Two has an homage and links to the Doctor's first and last "Hey Rube" columns. His last column details a 3:30 a.m. phonecall to Bill Murray (who portrayed Thompson in the 1980 flick Where the Buffalo Roam) to tell him his newly invented sport, shotgun golf. On the other hand, I can't believe Rolling Stone doesn't even have a mention of Thompson's death on their homepage, especially considering all the writing he did for that mag. Very sad indeed. Guess that's what happens when you have a strictly controlled, marketing-oriented web site representing your mag. Guess you hafta get a "package" together, put it out there when it's been all scrutinized by the right marketing and legal folks and such. Aaaagh!

On a personal note, I guess I was never a rabid fan but more an entranced spectator of the Duke. He was such an iconoclast, and I'm sure that's what I found compelling about him.

Finally, here's a fitting quote often attributed to the old boy:

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!"

Update 2/22: MTV's Kurt Loder writes a decent, balanced obit, and includes this great Thompson quote which shows that even the Duke understood that booze and drugs alone do not a writer make:

One day you just don't appear at the El Adobe bar anymore: You shut the door, paint the windows black, rent an electric typewriter and become the monster you always were — the writer.

And Rolling Stone finally adds a piece--which they link to unobtrusively from their homepage. Better than nothing, I guess. . . . And finally (later today) they add their "package." Toldja.

Oh yeah, Christopher Hitchens offers this Thompson obit and manages to insert this subtle but lame dig in those who opposed the war in Iraq in the second sentence:

The meeting was to be enlivened by the announcement of the forcible annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, who would go on to trouble our tranquility for another 13 years.

Sorry, Hitch. Hussein wasn't troubling our tranquility for 13 years. On the other hand, this guy--you may have heard of him--Osama Bin Laden, he severely troubled our tranquility back in 2001. It's hard to believe that Hitchens has become such a one-string banjo that he has to insert a thumbs-up to the war in Iraq in an obituary for a guy he no doubt knows full well opposed said war.