Congratulations on the Oscar, Mr. No Credibility.

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.

Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear.

(Somebody in the VRWC musta fucked up.)

Posted by: annika at 07:29 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

i went with Betty and her sister to see The Passion of the Christ Friday night, but it was sold out. In fact, all the evening shows were sold out the whole weekend. So, the three of us ended up seeing the 10:00 matinee in Glendale on Saturday. Now that iÂ’ve had some time to reflect, hereÂ’s what i think.

After an advance screening of The Passion, the Pope is said to have remarked: “It is as it was.” A few days ago, i wrote about my preliminary expectations. If you plan to see the movie but haven’t, i may ruin some of the experience, so you may want to stop reading now. Even though everybody knows how it ends, i think it’s best to view any movie without foreknowledge of how the filmmakers plan to tell the story.

ItÂ’s definitely an important movie. Is it a masterpiece, as some have called it? i really donÂ’t think so. If youÂ’re a Christian, it's not a movie that you can walk away from without being affected in some way. But it's missing something. It was well made. iÂ’m glad i saw it. iÂ’ll probably see it again, even though it is very difficult to watch. i didnÂ’t hate it, but at this point, iÂ’m not sure i can say i liked it. Maybe i wasnÂ’t supposed to.

While the movie has its flaws, The Passion is realistic enough to make me almost believe i was there, at the crucifixion, something i have been hearing about and reading about all my life. ThatÂ’s a powerful thing. There are moments of great emotional intensity. Betty cried throughout the movie, and she was shaking afterwards. As i walked out of the theater, i felt as if things were different, somehow. None of us wanted to talk for a while, but those feelings have worn off by now.

What i Liked

There are a few scenes that i liked very much. One scene in particular was a flashback scene with Jesus after he has built a table. Also, the stoning of Mary Magdelene was very nicely done. ThereÂ’s no dialogue in that scene and itÂ’s completely in slow motion. i couldnÂ’t tell what was going on until the final shot when MaryÂ’s face came onscreen, then it all made sense. Very powerful.

GibsonÂ’s treatment of Simon the Cyrenian was unusual too. i always pictured him as volunteering to help carry the cross, but i think his initial reluctance makes more sense.

The actors who played Simon Peter and Mary, JesusÂ’ mother, both gave very fine performances. The lack of makeup on the women in the film also added to the realism.

Satan was played by a woman, but made up to look androgynous. She was scary. The scene with Judas under a bridge made me jump in my seat. i also thought using kids to taunt Judas just before he hangs himself made it more diabolical.

Technically, the movie is very well made. The music, visual effects, and photography are all great. The director of photography, Caleb Deschanel, also did The Right Stuff, The Natural and The Patriot.

Is It As It Was? - Historical Accuracy

Mel Gibson obviously wanted to show us the most historically accurate Jesus film to date. Unfortunately, and as i feared, his commitment to accuracy was not as consistent as i would have liked.

My biggest problem is one that has been talked about a lot in the professional reviews. There is too much blood, too early, in my opinion. i thought about this for a long time. Perhaps if the amount of torture had been realistic, i wouldnÂ’t have been as bothered by it. But, at least during the scourging, i think Gibson overdid it. i donÂ’t think it was realistic.

The scourging scene goes on for an unnecessarily long time. Historically, people died from scourging. It didnÂ’t take a lot of strokes to kill someone, and Jesus was whipped savagely in the movie. Though iÂ’m not an expert on this, i really do think any person would have died from that amount of flogging. There was so much blood on the floor after the scourging scene, it is impossible to believe that Jesus wouldn't have at least passed out, let alone believe that he could carry a heavy cross afterwards. We know that Jesus did not die until he was on the cross for three hours, so i think Gibson overdid the scourging scene.

People died on the cross because it was so hard to breathe while hanging up there. if iÂ’m not mistaken, i believe the Nazis did some awful experiments to confirm this. i remember reading about it a long time ago in a book about the shroud. To breathe while on the cross, a person had to pull themself up by the arms to take each breath. Eventually they got too tired from the pain and torture of each breath and they suffocated.

ThatÂ’s why the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves. When people took too long to die, they would break their legs to hurry the process, because then the victims wouldnÂ’t be able to use their legs to help push themselves up for each breath. Gibson showed the leg breaking, but chose not to show the crucified men struggling to breathe up to that point.

ItÂ’s possible Gibson felt that Jesus had to be practically dead when he was on the cross, since he died without needing his legs broken. But i still feel that, given the severity of that scourging, Jesus would never have made it to Golgotha. We know that He did, and not only that, He was able to survive three hours on the cross.

The alternative to breaking the legs was to lance the victim through the heart, which they did to Jesus. That was one of the scenes when i became emotional during the movie, when the water starts coming out from the side. i always knew that story, but iÂ’d never seen it done on film that way. It was hearbreaking.

Betty had a theory that since Jesus was God, he therefore could take more punishment, but i disagree. The whole point of JesusÂ’ torture and death was for Him to submit to it as a man. Using His power as God to withstand any torture would have been accepting the DevilÂ’s temptation.

If one accepts that Jesus could have survived that horrible scourging, the amount of blood and the wounds do seem realistic, and i wouldnÂ’t have a problem with GibsonÂ’s choice to show that accurately. i just donÂ’t think the scourging could have been that severe.

Thematically, itÂ’s clear Gibson wanted to shock the audience with the amount of torture in the scourging. His torture represents the sins of mankind. It looks horrible because Gibson wants to impress us with the magnitude of GodÂ’s gift to us. That was the director's choice. If Gibson had toned it down to a less shocking level, maybe we wouldnÂ’t get the message.

With that goal in mind, i still wish we could have seen JesusÂ’ face a little more clearly. ItÂ’s so dark with blood, itÂ’s really grotesque and hard to look at by the end of the movie. Maybe iÂ’m just squeamish and maybe thatÂ’s what Gibson wanted.

i had a problem with the cross too. Like i said, Jesus should have been carrying the patibulum, not the whole cross. i donÂ’t understand why Gibson would choose to have each thief carry a patibulum and then have Jesus carry the unwieldy cross. That doesnÂ’t make sense to me. Why would the Romans have treated Jesus differently from the two other condemned men?

Still, it didnÂ’t bother me as much as Franco ZefferelliÂ’s cross in Jesus of Nazareth, which was more like a scaffolding than anything else.

Another thing, Gibson put the nails in the palms. In that book on the shroud, i read that the flesh of the hand was not strong enough to hold the weight of a human for longer than a few minutes. In the movie, thereÂ’s some rope around the wrists, but i donÂ’t buy that either. The Shroud of Turin shows the nail wounds in the wrists. Even if the Shroud is not authentic, you have to admit that the maker of the Shroud knew a lot about how people were crucified.

Does the brutality of the movie take away from its message? Some critics say it does. But i think many critics are confused about the message. And what is the message of The Passion of the Christ? Read the opening lines to J.S. BachÂ’s choral masterpiece, the St. MatthewÂ’s Passion.

Come you daughters, help me lament.
See Him!
Whom?
The bridegroom. See him.
How?
See Him like a lamb.
O guiltless Lamb of God
Slaughtered on the stem of the cross.
See Him!
What?
Behold His patience
Always He was patient,
Although He was despised.
See Him!
Where?
Behold our guilt.
All sin hast Thou borne
Else we must needs despair.
See Him, out of love and graciousness,
Himself carrying the wood for the Cross.
Have mercy upon us o Jesus.

Nowadays, people seem to think that Jesus came simply to tell us to be nice to each other. ItÂ’s a pleasant message, and it fits into our overly secular world without ruffling too many feathers. But, itÂ’s not why Jesus came here. Remember, we didnÂ’t need Jesus to tell us to "love our neighbor." That commandment was already in Leviticus. But in our secular world, people have forgotten the real reason Jesus came to earth, which was to suffer, to die, and to rise again.

People complain that thereÂ’s not enough teaching in the movie. That might be a bit unfair. To make a movie that emphasized JesusÂ’ teachings would be to make a different movie. But i will say that it would have been a more pleasant viewing experience if Gibson had balanced the horror with more uplifting scenes.

Is The Passion Anti-Semitic?

Some people, including some professional film critics, have said that The Passion is “clearly" anti-semitic. If that is true, then the Gospels are even more anti-semitic. Gibson’s Passion is less anti-semitic than the Gospels, and remember, the Gospels were all written by practicing Jews.

i donÂ’t think the movie is anti-semitic, though. The bad guy is Caiaphas, for sure. But even other members of the religious hierarchy are shown openly disagreeing with Caiaphas. i donÂ’t remember that being in the New Testament. Anyone who sees this movie, and then extrapolates Caiaphas into a representative of all jews, including todayÂ’s . . . perhaps that person should look inside their own heart first.

Would i recommend this movie? Yes and no. i'm not one of those who says "everyone should see this movie." It's not for everyone. i don't see any reason for a non-Christian to see it, other than curiosity. But then a non-Christian might not have the theological background to know why we believe what is onscreen represents a good thing.

Anyone who is dead set against this film or Mel Gibson, probably shouldn't see it. It won't change their mind. But i would recommend it for practicing Christians. At least one viewing, as long as you keep in mind this caveat: it's just a movie, it's one man's interpretation, it's not a substitute for the Gospel.

Posted by: annika at 06:27 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1944 words, total size 12 kb.

One thing i've learned from tonight's Democratic candidate debate: Ain't nothing wrong in this world that can't be fixed by repealing "George Bush's tax cuts for the rich."

To hear the democrats talk, you'd think "George Bush's tax cuts for the rich" was some sort of magic bottomless bag of money.

Posted by: annika at 07:30 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

i plan to see the movie. To prepare, i have avoided reading in depth reviews or listening to any of the talk shows that have devoted hours to uninformed opinions about the movie by people who have not yet seen it. Like anything having to do with religion, everybody has an agenda. It's real tough to find an objective opinion, so i try to stay away from all opinions until i can make up my own mind.

As an amateur historian, one thing i am interested in is whether Mel Gibson will depict the historical crucifiction accurately. i've heard so much about how bloody and violent the movie is. i'll reserve judgment on that until i see it. i think some anti-religious critics might be tempted to over-play the violent imagery in order to scare away viewers.

Most of the pre-release controversy is about the allegation that the movie and/or its director are anti-semitic. Two prominent jews whom i respect, and who have seen the movie, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, insist that it is not anti-semitic. But again, they may have their own agendas. So i'll reserve judgment on that issue too.

i'll say two other things in advance of my seeing it. First, i don't have a high opinion of Mel Gibson as a director, based on his past work. He is not known for being particularly good at historical accuracy. i did not like Braveheart, which was riddled with innacuracy. Same with Patriot, although i did like that movie better after a second viewing. If there's an excessive amount of blood, it makes me wonder if the moviemaker knew that death from crucifixion usually came about by asphyxiation.

Secondly, i happened to see only one still photo from the movie. It showed a cross that is a bit different from the actual device i believe the historical Jesus carried on the way to Calvary. From what i remember (and sorry i don't have any cite for this, i'm going off memory.) Jesus only carried the crosspiece, called a patibulum. The vertical part of the cross was permanently set up on the hill. In the movie, as in most art, we see Jesus carrying a T shaped cross, but i don't think that's what the historical Jesus carried. i'd also be interested in seeing whether they put the nails in the wrists rather than the palms.

i'm not too concerned when i hear that the movie doesn't focus much on Jesus' teachings. There are plenty of very good movies that cover that already. The Greatest Story Ever Told and Jesus of Nazareth are two that i've seen many times. Lest we forget, for us Christians, Jesus was more than just a nice guy who said a lot of nice stuff. The whole point of his life was that he died, why he died and what his death and resurrection gave to us all.

i'm planning to see the movie this weekend with Betty and her sister, after which i'll let you know how it fared against my expectations.

Posted by: annika at 12:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 518 words, total size 3 kb.

Now this is a great idea. Two fellow Munuvians, Stephen Macklin and Tuning Spork have decided to meet, eat and compete in a trivia contest. With questions to be submitted by the blogosphere!

They've decided to invite . . . their beloved readers, to pose to them trivia questions in their 5 chosen categories of "expertise". (That doesn't mean that they are, in fact, experts in those categories, but merely that those are the categories in which they'd like to be asked challenging questions!)

Sephen's chosen categories are:
1) Sailboat racing
2) Mac OS
3) Lord of the Rings
4) Food
5) Objectivism

Spork's chosen categories are:
1) The Beatles
2) Watergate
3) Offset printing presses
4) General Relativity and/or Classical Mechanics (non-Quantum Physics)
5) The Simpsons

Posted by: annika at 11:11 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Anybody know the answer to this question posed by a curious Kinayda?

Why do [Christians] accept only parts of the Bible? When I say Bible, I'm referring to the Five Books of Moses. The 10 commandments are a big deal. Everyone agrees with that, but it's pretty clear from the text that pork is a no no. Why isn't that one followed?

Posted by: annika at 07:38 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

1 See Acts 15. After Paul's first missonary journey, some men from Judea came down to Antioch and told the new Gentile converts that they had to be circumsized. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to take counsel with the apostles there. The judgement rendered is given in Acts 15:23-29, specifically Acts 15:28-29 " 'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.' " (NASB)

Posted by: D at February 25, 2004 07:56 PM (mSIyk)

2 Here's my half-a**ed understanding of it. In Christian tradition, Christ is viewed as the Ark of a New Covenant between God and his people. The Old Covenant was wiped away by the sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, the various ritual strictures and so on that went along with the Old Covenant (like the prohibition against eating of pork) were also wiped away. But objective truth hasn't changed. The Ten Commandments aren't a matter of ritual, discipline or anything of that nature; they're fundamental moral tenets. So, too, probably, for some of the other ideas expressed in the Old Testament. Of course the problem that this view raises is who determines what parts of the Old Testament weren't obviated by the New Covenant. Catholicism has a simple answer to that: The Church. Protestants . . . well, ask a Protestant.

Posted by: Matt at February 25, 2004 08:11 PM (of2d1)

3 Oh yeah, and one other thing, Acts 10:10-15, regarding Simon Peter: "And he became hungry, and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Arise Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." And again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." This is sometimes cited as specific to allowing non-kosher foods. I personally think Acts 15 is a little more persuasive on that point.

Posted by: D at February 25, 2004 08:13 PM (mSIyk)

4 Help! I can't stop myself! Galatians 4 and 5, specifically: Galatians 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Law." (NASB) (and one extra (NASB) for the one I forgot above).

Posted by: D at February 25, 2004 08:25 PM (mSIyk)

5 D you have it right. I just looked up the scripture and came back on to post and lo and behold, you've already used my verse. Way to go

Posted by: Darth New Guy at February 25, 2004 08:34 PM (vZpBJ)

6 My understanding of the Bible is that Matt is essentially dead on. I haven't been able to find it by skimming through the Gospels, but at one point someone asks Jesus if it's right or neccessary to keep a strict Pentatauchal (word?) diet, to which Jesus responds "It is not what enters a man's mouth that makes him unClean, but what comes out of it." This was taken, by Christians, to mean that -- so long as a meat is cooked to a safe temperature -- all nutritious and yummy foods are "clean".

Posted by: Tuning Spork at February 25, 2004 08:58 PM (Oruqb)

7 Tuning Spork, Good catch! That's from Matthew 15 (verse 11 spec.) and Mark 7:18-19, which has the addendum "(Thus He declared all foods clean.)" Considering that the Gospel of Mark is essentially Peter's account, this was probably a later addition/commentary from Peter, considering his reaction from Acts 10. BTW, thank you annika. I've been slack in my reading, and finding this for you has helped me to see how much I miss it.

Posted by: D at February 25, 2004 10:52 PM (mSIyk)

8 That's nice D. You're welcome.

Posted by: annika! at February 25, 2004 11:58 PM (ElGJQ)

9 The following is a very thorough look at that subject - follow along in your Bible and decide for yourself. To Eat or Not To Eat

Posted by: Otto at February 26, 2004 12:12 AM (VUydE)

10 The academic answer to why we pick and choose: Hermeneutics. We all engage in it. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 26, 2004 03:42 AM (amj7F)

11 The historical answer (as opposed to the Biblical answer) is that Jesus basically made no hard or fast fules breaking with Jewish law and he'd be surprised to find a bunch of people running around using his name AND eating pork. There are volumes written about the battles that took place between the original Jewish followers of Jesus and Paul and his followers. Paul and his followers won that battle and got to write the rules (i.e. the Biblical answers). And while we're on the subject (and since you don't have comments working on the Passion post) I'll say what's annoying me a great deal are people like Sullivan and others complaining about the violence, that it's obscene, that it's extra-Biblical, that we have no way of knowing. Well, the Romans did keep pretty good records of just what it was they did to people before and during executions. They didn't invent crucifixion, but they sure as hell enhanced it. I'm an atheist, but a big fan of Jesus books and am looking forward to the movie. By the way, in case you didn't notice the writing credit on the movie Jesus of Nazareth, you should go back and check. There's a novelized version, "Man of Nazareth" as well, which I highly recommend.

Posted by: ken at February 26, 2004 08:56 AM (SSqFk)

12 Because bacon just tastes too good?

Posted by: Rob at February 26, 2004 11:59 AM (I8TpC)

13 Let's put aside the ham sandwich for a moment, and take a look at a more incendiary concept. Go to your average gentile church (of which I am a part), and mention that perhaps we ought to take another look into The Law as a viable way of life, and most will smack you in the head, figuratively speaking, about how we have been freed from the bondage of the Law, and that we have liberty through the atoning and sacrificial gift of Christ. Until you mention the Tithe. Then, for the most part, the liberty is not so liberating. Personally? I remember Jesus saying something along the lines of, "Whoever keeps the law, and teaches others to do so, will have the greatest place in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever does not keep the law, and teaches others to do so, he will have the least place in the kingdom of heaven. I don't have all the answers. I haven't even figured out why Jesus would be willing to die for me, though I accept it and I'm grateful for it. But if you can't ask without being branded a heretic, then how are the answers ever going to come? Besides, I get the impression that my Creator is big enough to handle my curiosity, and even my anger at times. Nice place you have here, by the way.

Posted by: Mr. E. at October 07, 2004 06:45 AM (VeF+W)

14 Was browsing through blogspot when I stumbled here

Posted by: Jimmie at November 03, 2004 12:41 AM (ba7kH)

15 IT DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S ALL MADE UP! WHY DOES GOD KILL OR CAUSE TO BE KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE,CHILDREN, BABIES,ETC.? THE FLOOD,CHILDREN IN SODOM&GOMORA, 75,000 WHEN KING DAVID TOOK THE CENSUS THE WRONG WAY? MY FAVORITE IS WHEN MOSES RETURNED WITH THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AND ORDERED 3,000 OF HIS PEOPLE KILLED BECAUSE THEY GOT OUT OF LINE WHILE HE WAS GONE, HEY....WHAT ABOUT THO SHALT NOT KILL? CHRISTIANS BELIEVE OTHER RELIGIONS ARE MADE UP...GUESS WHAT,THEY'RE ALL MADE UP. MAN NEEDS TO WORSHIP A HIGHER BEING AND HE'S ARROGANT ENOUGH TO CREATE GODS AND CAN JUSTIFY KILLING IN THE NAME OF HIS MADE UP GOD. HOW FOOLISH! I AM A HUMBLE ATHEIST, ONLY A FOOL CLAIMS TO KNOW HIS CREATOR. TRY TO THINK LIKE ME AND QUIT ACTING LIKE A ARROGANT FOOL. WISE UP !!!

Posted by: FRANK ECHLIN at January 07, 2005 05:18 AM (+7VNs)

16 Interesting swaree (sp?). Anyway, the answer to the first question is simple. Christians believe in authority and absolute truths. However, Christians also believe that man in Adam, fell from the condition of being able to understand those things without special revealation (e.g. the Bible). Therefore, the Bible is the authority on all that must be believed and practiced inorder to please God and live happily. (see question 1 in WCF shorter catechism) The levitical rites where a type or a demonstration of what Christ would be for His people, so when the Christ came the service they provided seased to be needed - but it was not Christians that simply decided this to be the case, but rather scripture that instruced us that this is so. The whole book of Hebrews is very critical in this discussion. Christians believe that they do not posses the authority in themselves to take bits and parts of the word of God and not the whole thing. As Christ said: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by "EVERY" word which proceeds from the Father" which is its self a quotation of scripture. So if your curious why Christians eat pork, it's because the bible tells them so. =-) - and of course bacon is quite tasty too. The formal answer is called canonicity, which means by what measure or rule. There maybe some groups of Christians that deny the authority of the whole word of God, but classically it was not so. Please don't get confussed by inconsistant Christians. After all we confess that we are all sinners. And if one might think that the Bible contradicts itself - do not eat/eat. Remember that not all things are static. We all wore diapers once, but thankfully no longer need to. this is an example of non-static. However, we have always needed food and drink, static. Just as the Ten Commandments will always be binding. Hope this helps... and Mr E. I would love to hear more of your curiousities?

Posted by: Andy at February 07, 2005 10:38 AM (Cjljd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i got an e-mail from a guy i don't know named Parson T. Dogies. the subject of his email is: better than via. Gra . stereophotomicrography.

i've always been interested in science and technology, and i'm curious about this stereophotomicrography, which is a field i've not heard of before.

Should i open it?

Posted by: annika at 07:12 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

As i recently said, i am in favor of same sex marriage. iÂ’ve listened patiently and with an open and sympathetic mind to all the arguments by those opposed to gay and lesbian marriage. While i am respectful of those who hold the traditional view, i have not found any of their arguments persuasive.

Still, i am very happy to hear that President Bush has called for an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as “a union of man and woman as husband and wife.” i fully support this move, for reasons that are somewhat different than the president’s.

i have always believed that this very important question should be decided through the political process and not by a handful of non-elected judges. But impatient liberal activists have recognized that their best hope of achieving their goal is not by democratic means, but by judicial fiat and extra-legal executive activism. President Bush explained as much in his speech today.

In recent months . . . some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

. . .

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard.

i personally have no doubt that a Defense of Marriage amendment will ultimately fail. You need two thirds twice, and then three quarters. It will never happen. The process takes too long and there will never be more support for the amendment than there is today, because the tide of public opinion is changing every day.

Right now, the president is able to say with accuracy that there is an overwhelming consensus against same sex marriage. But from where i sit, i see an overwhelming majority of people in my peer group and younger who are in favor of gay marriage. As the years go by, it is inevitable that gay marriage opponents will become a minority, just as opponents to segregation have dwindled to near extinction within a generation.

WhatÂ’s most important to me, even more important than the equal rights issues that concern Mayor Newsom and the Massachusetts Court, is the future of our democracy. And that is why i applaud the president for his call to remove this decision from the courts and return it to the people, where it belongs.

Posted by: annika at 06:42 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Annie- you have got to be kidding me. an amendment stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the house and senate, much less the states. this vomit coming from the bush is nothing but a pathetic attempt at pandering to the extreme right wing religious fruitbats that he is at risk of alienating because they hate homosexuals and all they stand for. think about it for a few minutes, and consider the fundamental rights that all men and women should enjoy.. this is not about giving anyone anything new, it's about realizing that some things just should be. do you realize that the amendment that the fucking idiot in the whitehouse proposes is the only the second one ever that would restrict the rights of american citizens? oh and the other one was repealed when folks realized that the temperance movement was based in religion and not really as popular as they lead the nation to believe. you've tosses some gems out in the past Annie, and i know your intentions here are honorable, but i think you are giving lil shrubbie way too much credit here. this is all about creating a litmus test where voters will be pushed toward making a choice in the november election based on their religious beliefs. just watch, abortion issues will be next. this move might get a few move votes for bush, but i think it will galvanize the opposition who will see the bigger picture as a man who does not really care about much other than his chances for re-election and he is willing to rape the constitution to get it. "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" ya- i'm barkin at you. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 24, 2004 07:47 PM (cfoFZ)

2 Hate to but I have to disagree with ya on this one, but for sightly different reasons than coyote. The first is I really don't like the idea of tampering with the constitution any further. Let's wait till the bastards read & understand what's in there now. It's already so crowded that senators & reps skip amendments (2nd, 4th, 5th, etc...)& I'd hate to confuse them even further. Second is I see abso-friggin-lutely nothing - (nothing I say, er.. type)in the constitution that delagates any authority to the feds to tamper in this kind of thing. Adding an amendment justifying federal intervention would be just another jumping off for them. Hell, I'm still not over the liberties (bad puns always intended) with the commerce clause. Lastly I don't believe marriage should be the business of ANY government. If I wish to bond myself to one person I do not need or desire state recognition of that. All of the "benefits" conferred by marriage should be left to individuals through contracts. So if I were king for a day (& damn I'd be busy) one of the things i'd do (admittedly close to the last as I'd have a full plate)is stop the state recognition or denial of marriage. It should be left up to the people in question & the religion of their choice (or not a religion as is their choice). But I wouldn't thank Bush too hard: while he's doing this thing you approve of, he's supporting a rider to a bill in the senate that would extend the assault weapons ban. Like I said, let's wait till they can read & understand the amendment we have before we start adding to their workload.

Posted by: P at February 24, 2004 08:49 PM (Aao25)

3 damn. in a hurry & couldn't even make sure my name was right...but odds are you'd have know it was me considering how it could have been ended perfectly by a Chief Joseph quote.

Posted by: Publicola at February 24, 2004 08:51 PM (Aao25)

4 Well, of course I disagree with you, Annika dear! But actually, I am happy. Bush left open the legitimacy of civil unions (which will disappoint the paleolithic right, which wanted those banned in an amendment too). He will leave his base unsatisfied, and he will infuriate a few soccer moms with gay brothers. Not to mention he lost a few gay Republicans. If Bush wants to fight a culture war, Democrats win. "Bring it on", indeed.

Posted by: Hugo at February 24, 2004 09:40 PM (4CibI)

5 Annika: Have you noticed a certain trend of kneee-jerking? I'm not sure why these guys even read your Journal, unless it is to give them a forum to be disageeably in disagreement. Your analysis hits the right spot with me, but more importantly, in the "fly-over states" where most Angeleno's seldom stop, it resonates completely. Fortunately for the President (and you and me) the constitution does not require unaminity, but only 2/3 of each House and only 3/4 of the states. That means we can pretty much ignore California, New York, New Jersey and probably Florida, well, at least the Democratic Senators and members of the House. Blog on... and ignore the noise.

Posted by: Shelly S. at February 24, 2004 10:48 PM (0SrUW)

6 Anika, In the short time since Bush spoke in favor if the amendment I have read volumes of arguements on both sides of the issue. I have written two posst myself in opposition to the amendment (Hereand here). The argument you are making that this is an issue of judicial restraint and rule if law is the only thing that comes close to justifying the idea. I don't think in anythng other than an election year would the president support an an amendment on this issue this strongly. But unlike othes, I don't have a problem with that. Coyote wroteThis is all about creating a litmus test where voters will be pushed toward making a choice in the november election based on their religious beliefsIsn't that what campaigns and elections are supposed to do? Candidates state their positions and voters vote based on which candidates positions they support. Isn't an election supposed to be a litmus test. I oppose the idea of this amendment and what it is trying to accomplish. The argument that it is a necessary step to fight rampant judicial activism and preserve the rule of law is the one very thin thread holding together my support for Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at February 25, 2004 03:04 AM (CSxVi)

7 I just await the eventual invasion of the Mongrol hoards from the North. Total immersion into decadence always precedes the fall of civilization.

Posted by: Tiger at February 25, 2004 06:11 AM (G5PGV)

8 If this is the true reasoning, and it could very well be (among others), then the administration needs to make the message clear. Like Stephen says, this is one rationale that might this palatable to a lot of moderates. President Bush tends to speak his mind and then follow through, but his message gets lost among the whining and spin coming from his detractors. On this, he's going to have to be blunt to turn aside the nay-saying and hand-wringing.

Posted by: Ted at February 25, 2004 06:14 AM (blNMI)

9 To succeed in defeating "judicial activism" on this issue, any amendment would have to specifically designate the power to make same sex marriage legal to the federal legislative process, i.e., Congress....otherwise, this "amendment" as proposed is activism by a different name, smelling only slightly more sweet. Also, "judicial activism" discards established legal precedent and the legislative record...what's to prevent an "activist" judge from disregarding a future enacted FMA that he views as extra- (or un-) constitutional?? Moving from the legal to the social, I've not yet heard a satisfactory answer to George Will's question of more than a year ago on ABC Sunday AM: How does one principally support same sex marriage and not support the marriage of multiple consenting adults? Or consenting adult family members? Do we care? Should "marriage" be just a contractual relationship that co-workers, family members, etc. can enter for tax purposes and other benefits?

Posted by: Count Waldstein at February 25, 2004 06:30 AM (QyDeG)

10 I wasn't aware that the U.S. Constitution was still valid anyway. That's funny. Ammend away I guess, even though the Constitution died long ago. As far as the homo-marriage goes, if they can marry then I can marry my pet asparagus. Yay! It'll mean about as much.

Posted by: Jason H at February 25, 2004 09:10 AM (yDD8m)

11 Your position is well stated with regards to our country becoming an oligarchy, with black-robed lawyers determing what's best for us. Both our state and federal legislators have abandonded their responsibilities with regards to reining in activist judges of all political persuasions. While I personally oppose "gay marriage" on the purely semantic grounds that it's an oxymoronic statement to me(let's face it, the reason people say gay marriage or same-sex marriage is because when someone just says marriage, you automatically think of a man and a woman), I'm perfectly willing to abide by this being determined via the democratic process. Sadly, the will of the people and the laws they've voted for are being deliberately ignored by judges that believe themselves to be the final arbiters of what should and should not be in this country. My opinion is that our legislators should grow spines and use the tools at their disposal to bitchslap these judges into performing their sworn duties. Impeachment should be a rarely used tool. However, if used properly, it would help instill in the judiciary a proper respect for their co-equal branches of government.

Posted by: physics geek at February 25, 2004 10:03 AM (Xvrs7)

12 "this vomit coming from the bush is nothing but a pathetic attempt at pandering to the extreme right wing religious fruitbats that he is at risk of alienating because they hate homosexuals and all they stand for." Looks like the string got pulled on our single-celled cliche' machine. Don't worry, those mean old Ashcroft jack-booted thugs still can't stop your dominant from buggering you. And you can still find a groovy DJ in one of the KY Alley West Hollywood clubs to marry you two (for a large fee of course). Marriage has never been, nor ever will be, a "right" no matter what your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings are. Pinhead.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 25, 2004 11:18 AM (+P5I5)

13 hehe redneck, i know it's hard for you to understand, but i do love your posts. you single handedly make a fantastic argument that if a person is a total brainless dumbfuck, he is more likely to be a conservative. most conservatives that read this blog don't fit anywhere near that label, but it's nice of you to bring that aspect of the conservative party to the table. your arguments serve as a continual reminder that much of the president's support base comes from people who are far to stupid to think for themselves. you really should consider an apology to the other good folks who actually contribute to the discussions on this blog, as you really are an embarassment to their cause. but i sure love seeing you act out. it's comedy, on the web! :-) Annie - i'm really sorry about baiting the redneck, it's just so hard to resist giving someone the rope when you just KNOW they will use it. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 25, 2004 11:39 AM (cfoFZ)

14 Care to offer proof of any of your shallow ad hominems? This may come as a shock but nobody believes anything you say just because you say it. Despite your egregiously inflated opinion of yourself and your so-called arguments you still need to prove. Even you get no pass. Prove that marraige is, or ever was, a right under the constitution and you can call me a brainless dumbfuck, an embarassment, etc. Making silly assertions without even attempting to back it up makes you come off as, I don't know, brainless. A dumbfuck? Gallingly shallow and arrogant? I won't say you are an embarassment. Saying anyone on the left is an embarassment to their cause would be akin to saying water is bad for the ocean because it's too wet.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 25, 2004 01:23 PM (0vCck)

15 "How does one principally support same sex marriage and not support the marriage of multiple consenting adults? Or consenting adult family members?" i've heard that argument, and as JadeGold would say: nice strawman. One can support gay marriage and not support polygamous and incestuous marriage simply by saying so. Drawing a line. Make one legal and the other illegal. The law makes fine distinctions like that all the time. The better question is whether, by applying the equal protection clause to homosexuals in order to allow gay marriage, must one then open the door to polygamists and incestuous couples? i know the answer to that question, but let's see if any of you can figure it out.

Posted by: annika at February 25, 2004 03:29 PM (zAOEU)

16 What equal protection argument? Gays have exactly the same right to marry that straights have -- just not to each other. In San Franscisco, if you are a city worker you can have your sex organs changed out and the public pays for it. You are pandered to by every elected official within 50 miles. I can't offer proof of this, but I understand that gays have the highest income and highest education of any demographic in California. And you Annika, want to compare their "plight" to that of blacks under Jim Crow? That's offensive. Bring it on indeed. If this election becomes a referendum on gay marriage Bush will win probably 49 states. Thinking Democrats are scared to death of this issue because it is going to be a disaster for them in November. The Dems were starting to show some discipline but now clearly California is now in play for Bush, where he had no chance in hell before.

Posted by: Rezdog at February 25, 2004 04:24 PM (GvcCA)

17 I have had a crush on Annika since she wrote her first blog on www.soulparking.com. I know we are talking about President Bush here - but there's nothing sexier than a woman who is smart, beautiful, and has bigger balls than ramblin redneck. Now, I am true redneck. Grew up where the filmed Mississippi Burning. My dad ran a Piggly Wiggly and I bagged groceries. I remember the Klan handing out pamphlets at the intersection before going on to shop for T-shirts at Bargain Town. And just like then where mixed couples were hiding in the shadows afraid to go out in the street to be heckled. Or heck even me - my first crush in high school was on a black cheerleader. And feeling guilty for it - asking God to remove this sin. But you know - I still had the feeling - and how could it be a sin? Why is it ever wrong to love someone? And isn't God love? Why the hell if two people who love each other, make a committment to marry - which is so incredibly hard in itself and then go against the goverment,social norms, the majority, go against almost death defying odds - to get a silly piece of paper. Hell, God doesnt need that piece of paper to know you are married. Because it is the ultimate act of love. And like during slavery times it was forbidden to marry a slave and from that exploded a Civil War. Over Christmas I visited my best friend Brent who is a funeral director in Montegomery and his two beautiful kids who are mixed and his freakin' gorgeous African American wife. Because you cannot stop an idea whose time has come. So this isnt about penis and anus or vagina and vagina. If thats what people think this is - you're just like radical redneck. Its about dying for someone. Sharing your hopes and dreams. Being able to share your life insurance with someone you spent your life with. Not get penalized with extra taxes because you are in love but NOT married. To have proper health insurance for the person you love when they get cancer and cant take care of themselves. So regardless if you are hetro, gay, Asian, Black, white as radical redneck or me, Romanian, German... There is a feeling the whole world feels: the fear of being alone. The completition of finding your other half. And what a fucked up world we live in that a GOVERNMENT would attempt to stop someone froming making it official... Blog on, A, blog on.

Posted by: rambling redneck at February 25, 2004 04:51 PM (ydjJe)

18 Oh I forgot one thing. Annika is for keeping it democratic - I am down with that. Dont want this to become a country of anarchy and not votes. And another thing no one talks about: you know the stipulation right? I rush to San Fran to get married to the man of my dreams... We fly back to North Carolina and we fall out of love. The stipulation for divorce is you have to live in the state we married for a year together before being eligilble to get a divorce. If rednecks who are pushing for this thing to get overturned really wanted to cause pain - let things stand. There is no greater pain than having to live with someone you utterly hate in a foreign place for a year. Okay done ramblin.

Posted by: rambling redneck without a point at February 25, 2004 04:59 PM (ydjJe)

19 hey! who is that person using the the redneck's sig? i know it can't be him because there was no detailed description of horse anatomy,, anyway, whomever you are, i was looking to find where anyone had mentioned that marriage was a right granted in the constitution. strange-- first i see it mentioned so was by you.. go figure. well Annie has mentioned the equal protection clause so i'll assume you believe her. there is also the UN declaration of human rights that was signed by the US. so redneck imposter, you win the argument that marriage is not spelled out the constitution proper. i guess it does not matter that no one wants to argue with you about that. the point that was made is that a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman will indeed be the only active amendment that restricts the rights of american citizens. just to be clear, to ban something means that you restrict someone's right to do that certain something.. actually the more i think about it, the more i like the idea that w has taken this stand. it will ensure that not one gay person votes for him. ( some actually would have had he not came out in support of this amendment) now i'm fairly certain that more gays will actively work against bush. a great many centrist voters will walk away from the republican side of the ticket. ( i agree with Annie, while some polls indicate that there is a slight margin in favor of a ban on gay marriage, there are just as many that show the opposite. that coupled with the fact that very few people that i have talked with support the ban, i feel that the there is not nearly the support for this that some might hope for.) some straw polls of the senate have already shown that there is not nearly enough support there for such an amendment to get through. this will make bush appear weak, right before the election. not a good thing. i think bush is betting that he can force religious people to toss aside the other issues that may have been important to them in favor of these "faith based" emotional ones. i don't know how wise it is to assume that people will vote against their wallets, or their kid's wallets for that matter. i hope you are not storing the real redneck away like that guy zed did with the "gimp" in the movie pulp fiction.. i never really did figure out the undertones of that scene. pulp fiction was a great film though. please let the real redneck out to play soon! love ya ;-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 25, 2004 05:04 PM (cfoFZ)

20 ok now im really confused.. i'm fairly confident that ramblin redneck is a different redneck than the radical redneck OR the radical redneck imposter. sheesh! anyway.. Annie- i'm curious how you do propose to get around the multiple marriage and other corner cases that might arinse. i was trying to think of a reason why i would care if 30 hippies living out in the woods decided to all marry each other. as long as everyone involved was a consenting adult, able to enter into such a contract, who really gives a crap what they do? sure it's probably a bad idea, frought with all sorts of interpersonal issues, but people should be allowed to make their own choices and live with both the benefits and the consequences.. i feel it's not up to me, you, or the government to decide how anyone lives their life. that said i'll admit i have no clue how to reconcile the possibilities you mention. bring it on girlfriend. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 25, 2004 05:19 PM (cfoFZ)

21 "i hope you are not storing the real redneck away like that guy zed did with the "gimp" in the movie pulp fiction.." That was pretty funny actually! That's the first interesting thing you've ever wrote. You still haven't proven shit. The only Equal Protection landmark cases given the highest scrutiny are for Immutable Characteristics (ie. race), not for fetishes for packing fudge and eating box. Sorry, you lose again. Every time some tiresome activist has tried to get the Supremes to recognize sexual choices as immutable they have fallen flat on their face. That is one reason we will have legislation explicitly pointing that out. Something like this should never be up to the caprice of 9 individuals even though Bush will eventually get the right 9 in during HIS SECOND TERM. TYPICAL COYOTE POST: Shrub is a doo-doo head KKKonservatives are stupid and I'm so above them although I can't and won't ever offer evidence Rich are getting richer - Poor are getting poorer Arf! :-) (most thought provoking part of post) Canine Subspecies

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 25, 2004 05:36 PM (AiJ+l)

22 radical redneck.. im just curious, with all that legal training you have, how is it that you can only fall back on hate to justify why gays should not be able to marry? how is it that they harm you by being married? if you are sooo freaked out about the fudge packers and the box eaters getting married, well the solution is really easy.. don't marry one. bring out the gimp. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 25, 2004 05:54 PM (cfoFZ)

23 Excellent Radical Redneck. You got closest to what i'm thinking: immutable characteristics give rise to the equal protection clause. Now please, take note that i am not saying i endorse the following argument one way or the other. (i don't think i've been misunderstood by so many people so many times as i have been in the last week.) But the courts will use the equal protection clause to compel recognition of gay marriage. Either by saying that the status quo restricts the rights of females to marry females because of an immutable characteristic - being female; and by saying that it restricts the right of males to marry another male because of an immutable characteristic - being male. Or, the courts could ignore the precedent you alluded to, by saying that indeed, homosexuality is an immutable characteristic that deserves protection under the EPL clause of the 14th amendment. The scientific jury is still out on that question, but that shouldn't matter to an activist court. Either way, the courts will base an expansion of the definition of marriage on an immutable characteristic. That is the difference between gay marriage and polygamous/incestuous marriage, which George Will (whom i otherwise respect) conveniently failed to consider when posing his famous rhetorical question. It will therefore be easy to say: gay marriage okay, polygamy and incest, etc. not okay. The former is protected because what you are is an immutable characteristic, and the latter can be proscribed because the EPL clause doesn't apply to a class of people defined by their "lifestyle choices." And please don't write back saying "But Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice." i'm aware that there is a debate on that subject. My personal opinion aside, i'm just telling you what the courts will say when the inevitable lawsuits come asking them to allow incest and polygamy pedophilia and bestiality, etc. My point is, it's a fallacious argument to say that if we have gay marriage, the courts will automatically have to allow all types of non-traditional marriage. No they don't. Not if they don't want to. (But of course, you never know what the 9th circuit might do.) Finally, i wish Rezdog had read what i wrote a second time before flying off the handle. i never compared the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks under Jim Crow. i understand a lot of gay activists are fond of doing that. i think it's innacurate at best and an insult to the civil rights movement at worst. As Jesse Jackson pointed out: "The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote,"

Posted by: annika! at February 25, 2004 06:28 PM (RBDfc)

24 "how is it that you can only fall back on hate to justify why gays should not be able to marry?" Duh! Did you ignore the whole post or are you being deliberately ignorant. I explained how the holding legal precedents DO NOT give someone's sex choices the same protection as thier immutables (race, gender). I use heavy handed language to drive home the point (sorry Annie, homosexuality IS a choice and one can choose not to be). Any "hate" (another leftist buzzword so overused it's become meaningless) you think you see is irrelevant to the argument. To see this takes some critical thinking. Work on it. If I had a tiny dick and felt compelled to fuck women between the toes, I wouldn't expect special rights due to my fetish. I wouldn't expect someone else's insurance to cover me if I got athletes' cock! I work in entertainment and media in NYC, I'm sure I have contact (not that kind) with more homosexuals than anyone else here posting. It is not immutable - they vary back and forth, and many just go through a phase. It's hardly the same as race. "if you are sooo freaked out about the fudge packers and the box eaters getting married, well the solution is really easy.. don't marry one." To the simple minded and self-centered yes. Unlike leftists I am concerned by what is right and healthy for society and my country as a whole. I am able to understand that some things effect everyone even if it doesn't matter to me. I am able to think outside my tiny, little universe. You should try it sometime. If I thought like you Al-Queda should get a pass. After all, they didn't kill me or anyone I know. Leave them alone. BTW Nobody is a bigger fan of box eating than me! Fudge packing? That should be restricted to the doctors office (why do I always see BOTH my doctor's hands on the table during digital exams?)

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 25, 2004 08:06 PM (PZHZR)

25 First off, love the site Annie. I am sick an tired of those on the other side of the issue saying the religeous right are a bunch of homophobic fanatics. I consider myself a member, but I do not HATE anyone. Just because I believe that, according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong, does not mean I hate them. I don't believe that homosexuality is any different than any other sin (lying, stealing, adultery). I don't believe you persuade anyone to your side by persecuting them. I must say that after reading all these comments, my opinion was swayed a little. I will fight to the end to not allow gays to marry, but even if they suceed (and I must concede that they probably will), it won't be true marriage. It will only be state sanctioned, not recognised by God. If and when I get married, that will be God sanctioned as well as state sanctioned, but I really only care what God thinks, not what the state has to say. According to my beliefs, God created marriage, not for two people of the same sex, but for a mature man and a mature woman. The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. If it wasn't, I sure it would have said so or not mentioned it at all. If homosexual marriage is permitted, it will just be civil-unions with a different brand. Nothing more than marketing. I agree Annie, lines should be drawn. There are lines everywhere concerning this issue, and people are stepping over them and asking that they should be moved. What makes you think that once this line is erased NAMBLA (or however their acronym is spelled) won't be advocating to have laws changed so that they can legally have sex with boys, maybe even marry them. Seems pretty off the chart, but I am sure the idea of homosexual marriage was off the chart 30 years ago too. By the way, you people weaken your arguments by calling each other names. Are you people still in grade school? Keep up the good work Annika.

Posted by: javaslinger at February 25, 2004 10:05 PM (3rYmf)

26 redneck- your quite good with the insults, but you didn't answer the questions. just how exactly does allowing homosexuals to marry harm anyone? (and this right and healhty for the society BS is not good enough.) why is it that you care? details please. comparing homosexuals to terrorists makes no scense. please elaborate on that one too. Javaslinger- your right to believe a bible stops when it infringes on another's right to pursue happiness. in order to have a case against them, you have to be able to prove harm. it's very difficult to do and everyone whose has tried to do so in the courts before has lost. please feel free to believe as you please, but don't even begin to assume that because something is right for you, means that others need follow your example. :-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 26, 2004 06:50 AM (cfoFZ)

27 Dear Annika, Will's question is not a canard: First, Let's decouple the debate from separatist Utah polygamists and warped incestuous adults and focus on the "marriage benefits as an entitlement" segment of the SS marriage debate, i.e., "We're the victims of discrimination if we can't get hetero-marriage benefits." A successful daughter's mother is suddenly widowed...after the tragedy and emotional pain wear off, the mom and daughter get "married" in name only... JUST to accrue the tax-related and other benefits....Let's see...they have a strong emotional bond, there's no deviant sexual purpose to the marriage, and it's a way for families to help their own...this can't be less "fair" than SS marriage. OK, what about 4 downsized coworkers who've been on the same team for years and have developed strong personal (again, nothing weird) bonds...they've been slapped in the face by one of John Edwards's evil "Benedict Arnold CEOs" and getting "married" to them is a benefits partnership construct. I misplaced the link (and you can play ombudswoman if you like and force me to find it) but there was a recent left/liberal legal forum in your neck/woods, i.e., "Collyvorneea" that discussed strategies on how to refashion the concept of marriage in fashion similar to corporate law, i.e., multiple partnership and membership options. Normally I reject slippery slope arguments, but SS marriage is the exception to the rule. Do most gays/lesbians who want to be married want Andrew Sullivan-type assimilation? Yes. Are there a committed minority group of gay (and straight) legal radicals who see marriage as antiquated and want to dissolve it? Bet your ass. That's why your libertarian(ish) stance on this issue is dangerous, because right now you're admiring that admirable horse called "Gay/Lesbian equal rights" that the Greeks just delivered.

Posted by: Count Waldstein at February 26, 2004 07:45 AM (QyDeG)

28 Annie, please don't let the "if your not with us you are against us" party line bother you. it's not new that someone who questions standard party retoric be labled and vilified. it is just part of conservative politics. im sure the dungeons and dragons folks over at dogtown are pooping all over the floor at your "defection" the good count could only manage way off the wall corner cases to support his argument. take solice in that. :-) i adore you for being the last of the "compassionate conservatives". coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 26, 2004 08:03 AM (cfoFZ)

29 "questions party rhetoric....that's part of conservative politics..." This is the first Coyote since Wile E. who set and then fell victim to his own trap of liberal democratic inclusiveness... 1) Do you mean like pro-life Dem Gov. Casey who was yanked off the stage like The Gong Show at the convention in 1992? 2) Or the "progressive" black reaction to Clarence Thomas?? (Donna Brazile only one of many really tolerant quotes) Or any other black conservative? 3) Or the "traditional" feminist attacks on Camille Paglia? 4) Or the massive hitjob by the "tolerant environmentalists" on Bjorn Lomborg? 5) Or Bernard Goldberg at CBS when it became too thick even for a lifelong LBJ Democrat? 6) Or lifelong pro Bob Arnot let go by NBC for daring to file stories that contradict the Iraq-is-an-unsolvable-mess politburo line? Yep, those inclusive liberal Democrats.....

Posted by: Count Waldstein at February 26, 2004 08:23 AM (QyDeG)

30 "just how exactly does allowing homosexuals to marry harm anyone?" Not the issue genius, pay attention. The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law. Not those who want to keep it as is. In other words we don't have to answer it. To answer it anyway it's a fucking abomination. It spits (jizzes) in the face of every major religion upon which the entire ethos of the US was founded. Don't even think of the mythical "seperation of church and state" - all that means is the state can't establish a religion. "comparing homosexuals to terrorists makes no scense. please elaborate on that one too." Please try to keep up. I'm not comparing the two, I'm comparing your indifference and moral equivalency of everything that doesn't effect you directly. A stark example to make the point obvious although it still escapes you.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 26, 2004 08:25 AM (tyrEY)

31 redneck- all that typing, and you managed again, to say nothing of substance. you are not going to change my opinion, i am not changing yours. let's leave it at that, as i have other things to do than listen to your crude crap. i'll make it a point to sign up 2 more anti-bush voters today, and i'll use your own words to do it. see ya in november. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 26, 2004 08:40 AM (cfoFZ)

32 so count, i guess you're admitting that you are acting like a democrat? so to follow your reasoning, because others have done stupid things in the past, it justifies your doing them now? i kind of like the idea that open minded conservative are being pushed from the party. count, you assume that i am in support of all the things that the democrats like. sorry pal. it's not the case, so you can rag on the dems all you like, it won't phase me. in an ideal world, a real 3rd party can spring out of the corrupt bullshit we have now, a third party from the middle, who will promote the people's right to live as they choose while keeping the books balanced and corporations honest.. ya i know it's utopian, but in the meantime, i'll be doing all i can to keep either party from screwing up the whole ballgame. peace. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 26, 2004 09:01 AM (cfoFZ)

33 'yote, a "pox on both your houses" is fine, but remember your last best shot was H. Ross: He of the "I'll raise the federal gas tax to $2.25 and wipe the deficit out in 2 years" plan. It will take a serous recession or depression and another billionaire for your third party dream to be realized. Good luck.

Posted by: Count Waldstein at February 26, 2004 09:16 AM (QyDeG)

34 "all that typing, and you managed again, to say nothing of substance." Wow! The most specious poster in the entire blogosphere says I didn't post anything of substance. Devastating! I must kill myself right now! You have descended to the playground level of repeating everything said your way since you have nothing else. I have proven ad nauseum that you an empty vessel and all you come back with is "I know you are but what am I?" Sad. It's almost embarassing watching you. Go back to DU - they might even be impressed.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 26, 2004 09:26 AM (tyrEY)

35 Coyote, I am sorry you missed my point. While I would like everyone to agree with my morals, I am not stupid enough to believe as such. The main reason I commented was the what I said in the opening paragraph: I hate being called a homophobe simply for the fact that I think homosexuality is wrong. I hate no one. I find it funny thought that those who spew their vile toward President Bush don't think of themselves as hateful, but tolerant, when in reality all they can tolerate is their own opinion. Those of us who invoke are convictions and say we believe something is immoral, we are called intolerant and hateful without as much as a shred of proof. Funny huh?

Posted by: javaslinger at February 26, 2004 02:49 PM (3rYmf)

36 Annika, from my reading about the 'gay marriage' proponents, they are not just claiming 'equal protection'. They are also trying to use the Loving decision's 'freedom of choice' argument - that is everyone has freedom choice in who they marry. Does that not open the door to choosing multiple people, or people who are your blood relatives? That is using your 'freedom of choice'.

Posted by: Eric Sivula at February 26, 2004 06:09 PM (q1ey2)

37 We are commanded to love one another. But we do not have to love (or condone) the actions of others. I think that I am like most "regular americans" in that, I REALLY don't care what the gay and lesbian people do in the privacy of their homes. But, I do not want it shoved down my throat. I do not want to have to watch gay and lesbian couples lock lips in public. And, I do not want to have to explain it to my kids. Most of all, I DO NOT WANT MY KIDS TO THINK THAT THE GAY LIFESTYLE IS NORMAL - it isn't. I do not want sex education to include education about gay sex. That is the road we are traveling down! Please! I don't hate gay people - I love them. But they need to stop pushing for the right to marry. I believe most people (including our beloved President) support Civil Unions. Civil Unions allow gays and lesbians the same benefits as married couples. Why isn't that enough? Why must they insist on changing the definition of marriage? Gay people need tolerance and love from society. But I am afraid that if they keep PUSHING their lifestyle on the rest of us, it may just backfire on them. Whether you like George W or not, he is a decent, God fearing man. That is certainly more than can be said for Mr. Coyote. You know Mr. Coyote, your cause would be much better served if you would not resort to name calling. It is hard to take someone serious when they can't get their point across without foaming at the mouth with hatred.

Posted by: Jana at February 27, 2004 01:15 PM (Wg2KP)

38 The poor Democrtats will have to make a decision on same sex marriage and give up some of their Bush bashing air time. and yes it is the most important issue of this election. Fifty years from now the diffinition of mariage will be remembered as the most important issue of this election.

Posted by: steve at February 28, 2004 08:25 AM (6yqh+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

John at Right Wing News just posted his latest poll: Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Dinner Guests From Hell.

[S]elections had to be currently living people from anywhere in the world that they'd really dislike having to sit down with for a long 1 on 1 conversation over dinner. Furthermore, no dictators, terrorists, serial killers, or mass murderers could be selected.

1) Michael Moore (41 [votes]) Easy choice. A blowhard and a liar.

2) Hillary Clinton (25) Also easy. She's so full of herself. i'd imagine her talking and talking, but never listening.

3) Al Franken (19) i wouldn't mind having dinner with him. i don't think he takes himself as seriously as we on the right take him. And, he is a comedian, after all.

3) Barbra Streisand (19) Loud, smug, shrill, unrepentant egomaniac. She made my list.

5) Jacques Chirac (1 He'd probably put the make on me.

6) Al Gore (17) He did not make my list. i dunno. He seems like a bore, but he was vice president for eight years. i'd love to pick his brain about that.

7) Noam Chomsky (16) i would do physical violence to him with whatever eating utensil was handiest.

Ted Kennedy (15) i'd totally have dinner with him. No food, just booze. i'd get my own ride home, though.

9) Howard Dean (11) Party dude. Yeeeeaaaah!

9) Jesse Jackson (11) No. He might also make a pass, from what i hear about him.

11) Jimmy Carter (10) Again, former president, of course i'd like to meet him. Supposedly a very nice guy, even if he was worse than shitty as a president.

11) John Kerry (10) Dull, self-important prig. Not well liked apparently. i forgot to put him on my list, but he belongs there.

11) Ted Rall (10) You know, i'm only vaguely aware of who he is. Radical Redneck keeps sending me pictures of him. i guess he's some sort of liberal.

14) Terry McAuliffe (9) Liar. Like Ted Rall, he didn't make my list only because i generally ignore him.

14) Ralph Nader (9) He wasn't on my list, but i wouldn't have dinner with him. He's weird looking.

14) Sean Penn (9) Number 4 on my list.

17) Robert Fisk ( See my notes on Noam Chomski, supra.

17) Janeane Garofalo ( See my notes on Noam Chomski, supra.

17) Michael Jackson ( He was on my list. He's too scary. i'd keep looking at his fake nose, and i wouldn't be able to enjoy my dinner.

20) Alec Baldwin (7) i would throw rocks at him.

20) Paul Krugman (7) Blah blah blah. He didn't make my list.

20) Al Sharpton (7) Al's great. i'd definitely have dinner with him. That would be a lot of fun.

Other names on my list that didn't make it on John's were: Margret Cho, Tim Robins, Rosanne Barr, Dan Rathre, Bill Marr, Erik Roberts and George Cloonie.

Rosy O'Donell and Dan Rathre were honorable mentions on John's list. i can't believe Bill Marr didn't make it over there. Forget his politics, he's simply the most unfunny comedian i've ever heard.

Number one on my list: Rosy O'Donell. She literally makes me nauseous. Not a good thing when your eating dinner.

Posted by: annika at 12:15 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 3 kb.

1 No Bill Clinton...I find that curious.

Posted by: Victor at February 24, 2004 04:49 AM (L3qPK)

2 Victor - since she already has Hillary, why bother with Bill..unless you just like to see her move his lips? But what's up with Al Sharpton? Really Annika , he's a self serving, Jesse Jackson wanna be , with a paper thin platform ('more for my people, less for yours'). Plus I don't think Al would add too much to the conversation with all that free food sitting around!

Posted by: jim at February 24, 2004 07:04 AM (zE10C)

3 Supposedly Al Franken isn't that bad. He did a USO tour with a country musician (whose name I don't recall), but nonetheless shared radically different political views than Mr. Franken. Mr. Franken, it seems, took the high road overseas and didn't spend any time with tearing down the President et al. (unless, of course, you count 'President' Hussein). The pro-liberation musician, at the end of the tour, expressed his opinion that Franken was a class act, even if they didn't agree substantially.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at February 24, 2004 08:08 AM (9X/fX)

4 Annika, I think you're greatly underestimating the number of guys that would make a move on you if given the chance. If you exclude them from dinner for that, you'll never have dinner with another male again. I saw your picture.. Given a chance and a dinner invite, I'm sorry, but a lot of us would roll the dice.

Posted by: Rob at February 24, 2004 11:06 AM (f1Rv3)

5 Oh Rob. You're definitely in the running for next week's HCOTW®!

Posted by: annika! at February 24, 2004 11:31 AM (zAOEU)

6 Kennedy dinner date: No Problemo...inflatable boots...that, or a tiny James Bond air tank. (think Thunderball in the shark pool) Sharpton would be great dinner conversation...the one upside to a Sharpton Presidency would be Cedric the Entertainer as Press Secretary...they would move WH press briefings to prime time. In seriousness, we forgot Maureen Dowd...actually, how about the dinner table insecurity black hole if you combined MoDo and Tina Brown?

Posted by: Prince Lichnowsky at February 24, 2004 02:16 PM (QyDeG)

7 "Cartoonist" Ted Rall in his muse. This will get Coyote's 1" standing straight up! http://asmallvictory.net/archives/TedRall.html [NOT WORK SAFE. a.b.]

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 25, 2004 11:00 AM (+P5I5)

8 I think I'd have to call it a tie between Rosie and Nutpig Moore.

Posted by: d-rod at February 27, 2004 09:29 AM (CSRmO)

9 Per Ted Rall: All you need to do is read this to see what kind of man Rall is. http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:7PasbyNSvcoJ:www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/Articles/arts081.html+ted+rall+%22why+we+fight%22&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

Posted by: Sarah at February 28, 2004 07:53 AM (byzVm)

10 Okay, i read about one paragraph of that filth and clicked it off. i would love to have dinner with that asshole, just so i could stick a fork in his eye. Then i'd laugh at him while he cried.

Posted by: annika! at February 28, 2004 05:39 PM (AT7hD)

11 Sarah, Thanks for reinforcing my disgust for walking feces bitch boy Rall. Go to the site I put above and you will find the source of that scumbag's motivation. Annika, still don't believe that's a real picture?

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 29, 2004 08:27 PM (WwSqc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Karol at Spot On posted some very interesting facts about the year 1975. An interesting perspective on how much we have changed, or not. Do read the comments too.

Posted by: annika at 09:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Picking a Huge Comment of the Week^® for the week of February 15 through February 21 was difficult for me. Two or three lengthy and civil debates occurred in the comments. The Kerry's Medal post garnered 21 comments. The Judge Warren post yielded 14, and the Scalia At Amherst post topped the list with 22 comments.

So you'd think there'd be a lot of good material for me to choose from when determining the newest winner. Not true.

Yes, there were many comments that were well reasoned and articulately written. In fact, most of them were. Unfortunately, since so many of you visitors chose to disagree with me, i had to throw out all of those comments.*

That left me with a good number of amazingly brilliant comments by one particular commenter whom i happen to think very highly of. That is, of course, me. But it wouldn't really be fair to award the coveted Huge Comment of the Week^® award to myself. Heh, i'd win it every week then, wouldn't i?

Well, now that i think about it, maybe that's not such a bad . . .

No, of course not. That wouldn't be nice. So anyway, i agonized over this week's selection more than i usually do. Everyone who took part in the debates of the last week, here on annika's j, deserves their own silver star. Or in some cases, maybe a purple heart.

i had the feeling that i should award a tie. Such a decision would be consistent with my well known fear of commitment, so it made sense to do so. Especially with so many deserving commenters.

But then i came across some information, which i considered sufficient to break the tie in a way that would be manifestly unfair to the other deserving candidates. i found out that one commenter is taking the bar exam this week. Not wishing to distract him with undue worry over the outcome of this latest Huge Comment of the Week^®, i have decided to bestow the honor upon Matt Rustler.

The winning comment is Matt's February 20th counter-argument to my counter argument to his counter-argument. The one which prompted him to point out, in his next counter-argument, that i had been "conspicuously silent" in response to some analogies he made in his previous counter-argument. Well Matt, there was a reason i was conspicuously silent, you bastard. Those were tough analogies to defeat. i'm still right, though.

And since Matt has already won the coveted prize once, he gets the very first Huge Comment of the Week^® Oak Leaf Cluster! Congratulations Matt, and good luck on the bar!

Then there's D-Rod, who called me a "vile slandering surrogate Bush lackey skankpuppy." That's okay, i consider those compliments. Except for "skankpuppy." i prefer "skank-kitten."

* Just kidding.

Posted by: annika at 07:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

Susie is running Frank J.'s "Super Lucky Happy Fun Permalink Contest Number One II."

If you please, go now to IMAO and vote for the correct contestant.

Posted by: annika at 04:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

i've read a lot of eulogies for Sex and the City over the last week, but none written as beautifully as this one at Candied Ginger. Thank you girls!

Posted by: annika at 09:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You're welcome. It was our pleasure to write it -- glad you enjoyed it so much!

Posted by: ginger at February 23, 2004 11:08 AM (WX5CY)

2 But not even Paris is that beautiful when you walk its ancient streets alone. So true. A touching final episode, but didn't you know Carrie would end up with Big?

Posted by: d-rod at February 23, 2004 11:45 AM (CSRmO)

3 Aw, I'm glad it was appreciated! We do try awfully hard over there.

Posted by: candace at February 23, 2004 05:15 PM (xLWSG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i don't understand why everyone's freaking out about Nader's announcement to run for president as an independent.

Nobody's gonna vote for him this time. i mean, the democrats may be stupid, but they're not idiots. And the left wing wack-jobs who voted for him last time may be idiots, but they're not stupid.

People who voted for him the last time recognize they made a mistake, and they won't do it again,' predicted Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association. 'He won't have the resources to mount a major campaign, and people are focused on solutions, not symbols.'

Posted by: annika at 08:57 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Sadly, there is also bad news this Sunday. A Los Angeles Police Officer was killed in the line of duty on Friday, while responding to a domestic violence call.

Officer Ricardo Lizarraga, 30, was shot allegedly by Kenrick Johnson, 32, as Lizarraga and his partner confronted Johnson in a South Los Angeles apartment. Lizarraga died Friday afternoon after surgeons at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center fought to save his life.

The suspect in the Lizarraga killing was being held Saturday in Men's Central Jail on suspicion of homicide and violating his parole from a prior robbery conviction, police said.

At a Saturday afternoon news conference, Bratton said he was incensed by the gunfire directed at members of the force. He said that LAPD officers had been shot at eight times so far in 2004, in addition to 40 such incidents last year.

The police chief blamed a number of factors, but said the primary problem was 'so many people with guns and they're not reluctant to use them — [they're] sociopaths.'

An unidentified undercover officer suffered a graze wound when he and a colleague tried to break up a fight. The scuffle, which included gunshots, had spilled into the street from a party near the intersection of 84th Street and Broadway in South Los Angeles, Bratton said.

The officers, who were searching for a murder suspect, had been watching the party from a van. They were shot at as they identified themselves as police. The officers fired back, killing one suspect who had tried to flee and wounding another.

It's not a good time to be a cop, these days. i'm paying more attention to these stories partly because i'm working on a novel about police. But also, these events hit home because i've always admired police officers. Like firefighters, they go inside places when any other sane person would say, "I ain't goin in there."

Officer Pavelka, the Burbank cop, was my age. He was just doing a routine traffic stop. Officer Lizarraga was trying to pat down the suspect when the guy got away and came back with a gun. He was shot twice, just below the bulletproof vest.

Posted by: annika at 12:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

Finally, i can report something that makes me happy about the direction of society. Even if it seems like a small thing.

Pretty is back.

Being feminine is back in style, and classic notions of prettiness are dictating the look for spring. Gone are the micro-minis and 'Matrix'-inspired vamps. Instead we have elegant floral-print frocks and terrific dresses with big skirts, dip dyes and scads of chiffon in saturated Technicolor that recall an era when, for better or worse, glamour was a way of life.

Posted by: annika at 10:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Emperor Misha linked to an article that asks some questions about Kerry's Silver Star.

Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.

(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.

(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him . . . .

(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple: If you had somebody on the beach, your boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. . . .

Something is fishy.

Here we have a JFK wannabe . . . who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets [Sen. Claiborne] Pell [D-RI] to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the [first] Gulf War . . . then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.

Posted by: annika at 06:53 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

There's an interesting comment thread going on in my recent Scalia post that i'd like to open up to a wider discussion. Here's what's happened so far:

First, Coyote brought up a pending case involving Dick Cheney, in which he believes Justice Scalia should recuse himself.

hmm,

maybe the kids at amherst are protesting the death of credibility of a supreme court justice?

face it, the outright refusal to step away from the cheney case does tend to raise an eyebrow or two.

there is ex parte and then there is EX PARTE..

the supreme court should be far above all appearances of impropriety, and spending a weekend with someone who has a lot to lose in a case that might be decided by your vote does indeed smell a bit inappropriate.

scalia's actions have nothing to do with left or right. the point is that he is tossing his own credibility out the window by engaging in ex parte communication with someone who has a case in his court.

there are two possible outcomes:

he finds for cheney, thereby removing any chance that his opinions are not seen as partisan political crap. this only serves to taint his leagacy. i'm sure scalia does not want his legacy to be one that screams "bought and paid for".

or

he finds against cheney in order to save face, thereby screwing the conservative cause of keeping the vp's energy discussions secret. i'm pretty sure that no one on the republican side of the fence wants those dicussions made public, as it would indeed add to list of problems facing the current administration.

if anything, consevatives should be very concerned about such a breech, as any short term victory (cheney winning his case) would be grossly overshadowed by the fact that this inappropriate behavior might well take the teeth out of any future rulings scalia might make. not to mention that the whole thing only serves to chip away at the honor and reputation of the supreme court. those nine are supposed to be above back room politics..

if i were a conservative, i'd be worried shitless that scalia will save his own reputation rather than look like a corrupt ass in the history books.

Judges hate to recuse themselves even when the conflict seems obvious. It's sad. Take for instance Judge Warren, who's going to hear the injunction case against what Mayor Newsom is doing in San Francisco. Judge Warren is gay. Conflict? He apparently doesn't think so.

Annika, does that line of reasoning mean that Thurgood Marshall should have recused himself from hearing civil rights cases? Or that O'Connor and Ginsburg should recuse themselves from abortion cases? My dear girl, whom I love and admire, you come close to an unpleasant ad hominem argument there...

Annie-

maybe judge warren should recuse himself if he was spending the weekend with the mayor of san francisco, chasing boys or whatever.. your intolerance and prejudice are showing here :-(.

you assume that judge warren's sexual preferances will cloud his judgement when it comes to gays?

thats exactly like saying that the revered scalia would not be able to judge fairly on a case involving mr bush sr's son, you know, the guy who was VP when Ronnie Regan appointed him to the court..

im with Hugo on this one.

i tried to clarify my position.

You don't understand the purpose of recusal. It doesn't matter whether Warren is influenced or not, if he upholds the marriages, his decision will be tainted by the perception of a conflict, the perception of bias, and for that reason he should recuse himself.

Recusal is required not because of a fear of actual bias as much as a concern for perceived bias, which casts doubt on the independence of the judiciary. Apply your own reasoning to Scalia then, why don't you. If he tells us he won't be biased, why shouldn't you believe him and just leave it at that? You said it yourself, whichever way he decides will be tainted because of the perception. That's why he should recuse himself.

It is certainly reasonable for somebody to believe that a gay judge, who is at present personally excluded from participation in marriage, might have a personal interest in the outcome of a case involving the expansion of marriage's definition. He stands to personally gain or lose a fundamental human right, depending on his decision.

The Federal Code of Judicial Conduct says: "Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The California Code of Judicial Ethics says the same thing and adds that "a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification."

And i'm tired of being called prejudiced when it comes to this issue. i support gay marriage. This is a huge issue and i want to see it done right, especially since most of the country is against it. How does that make me prejudiced?

Oh, and, Thurgood Marshall, a personal hero of mine, didn't judge cases like Brown vs. Board of Education because he wouldn't have been allowed to! That's why he argued them instead. And if O'Connor and Ginsberg were pregnant and planning to have an abortion at the time they were hearing an abortion case, absolutely, they should recuse themselves.

First: I know the question was rhetorical, but I can't resist responding. The last time Scalia voted with the majority was January 26--the last time the Court issued opinions. Scalia's most famous for his dissents, but he doesn't always dissent!

Second: I think the case for recusal for Scalia is much stronger than for Warren. There has to be a reasonable limit on what factors require recusal. Every judge has some interest in most cases, even if it's only in the sense that he agrees or disagrees with the legal principle(s) pertinent to the case. The fact that a judge may have a personal policy preference on an issue does not automatically give rise to a reasonable inference that the judge will allow that preference to improperly influence his decisions (imho, of course). I think the fact that a judge is a member of a minority group is too weak a basis, without more, for requiring that judge to recuse himself from cases involving that minority. It requires us to infer something about the judge's preferences based on his class membership (always an iffy proposition), AND to assume that this speculative, inferred preferences will improperly influence him. By that rationale, it would seem to me that no judge who's a member of a racial minority should ever sit in an employment discrimination or similar civil rights case brought by a minority (or at least a minority from the same group as the judge), no woman judge should ever sit in a sexual harassment case brought by a woman, and very few judges should ever sit in cases involving age discrimination (since judges tend to be older folks). Similarly judges who are devout adherents of most mainstream religions (like Scalia) shouldn't sit in cases involving asserted gay "rights" (since nearly every orthodox religion implicitly or explicitly condemns the idea of gay marriage), and judges who are gun owners shouldn't sit in cases construing the Second Amendment or state equivalents. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Of course these are ultimately metaphysical arguments. There's no way for us to know to a certainty what is going on or will go on in a judge's head, so typically all we can do is make educated guesses about what's likely to unduly influence him/her. But those guesses can't be knee-jerk; there has to be a little reasoned analysis. It's not "unreasonable" in the common sense of the world to think that membership in a general class is prima facie evidence of potential bias significant enough to require recusal. But I think it's "unreasonable" in any sense of the word that takes into account the realities of our judicial system.

Scipio added some background:

Chief Justice John Marshall refused to recuse himself from several cases that he had been involved in; one where he had been a lawyer for one side; another where he had been a judge on the case previously; and a third where he had a demonstrable pecuniary interest in the case.

Annie-

What i meant about the prejudice is along the lines of what Matt has written. you pre judged that warren cannot make a just ruling because he belongs to the minority involved in the case.

the whole anology is some distance from scalia's predicament, when a week-end long ex parte sesssion with someone who has a case in front of him is most certainly a valid reason for a recusal.

but.. from the arguments you have made, it appears that you would indeed agree that scalia's best course would be to recuse himself.

But still, i think my opponents are missing my point. It's the perception of bias and the perception of conflict that requires recusal. It doesn't matter whether Warren can give an unbiased ruling. i'm not arguing one way or another whether he is in fact biased. It doesn't matter. He stands to gain from the outcome of the case. That's obvious. At present, as a gay man, he does not have the right to marry another man. It is now within his power to help give himself that right. That's a conflict. He should recuse himself because the perception of judiciary independence and non-bias is at risk if he doesn't.

Ask youself this. If you were a lawyer for the plaintiffs, would you consider appealing an adverse ruling on the injunction, based on Judge Warren's conflict? Of course you would. You'd be an idiot not to. If you support gay marriage, why give the plaintiff's that appealable issue?

What if this were about money? Maybe you'd be able to recognize the obvious conflict better. What if Judge Warren owned a '92 Taurus and a class action case came before him, brought by plaintiffs who claimed that all owners of '92 Ford Tauri deserved compensation for some defect. If the judge ruled in their favor, he would gain a benefit that he did not have before hearing the case. Should he recuse himself then? What if you and i both agreed that Judge Warren is a man of integrity who would not let his personal stake in the outcome affect his decision? The answer is clear. He should still recuse himself.

Matt said "The fact that a judge may have a personal policy preference on an issue does not automatically give rise to a reasonable inference that the judge will allow that preference to improperly influence his decisions." Of course. But when it is within a judge's power to give himself a benefit that he would not otherwise have, there is a reasonable question raised about his impartiality. The standard is not the actual existence of partiality or bias. How could one ever prove that? It's an objective standard. Does it look like he might not be impartial. If the judge stands to gain personally by the outcome, i believe the conflict is obvious.

Matt also makes other analogies, such as "it would seem to me that no judge who's a member of a racial minority should ever sit in an employment discrimination or similar civil rights case brought by [that] minority . . . no woman judge should ever sit in a sexual harassment case brought by a woman . . ."

Those examples are different than the situation with the gay marriage injunction. A woman judge does not stand to personally gain anything or lose anything by her rulings in a sexual harrassment case involving an individual plaintiff. Only the plaintiff can gain or lose, monetary damages in that case. In a sense, a woman judge gains when the rights of all women are upheld, but i agree that's not enough to require recusal. How could the system be arranged otherwise?

My point is, as a supporter of gay marriage, i want to see it done right. Ideally i'd have liked to have seen this kind of social progress made through the political peocess. By that i mean through acts of a legislature of elected representatives, not unelected judges. But, i'm realistic, too. This country is a long way from expanding the right to marry by legislative means. By going through the courts, Newsom and his supporters have forced the issue, and if it has to happen that way, i'd like to see it done with as much legitimacy as possible.

Posted by: annika at 11:10 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 2270 words, total size 14 kb.

AstroTurf maker Southwest Recreational Industries is going out of business. Professional athletes and their knees have every right to be happy about this. As a sports purist, i believe football and baseball should be played on grass, not carpet, and i hope that no other companies sprout up to replace SRI.

Posted by: annika at 01:53 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Noel at Consent of the Governed posted about Antonin Scalia's recent visit to Amherst College in Massachussetts, and the rude reception he got there.

As a Berkeley grad, this type of idiotic and childish behavior by academics and their brainwashed students shouldn't surprise me. But still, sometimes i am shocked. i guess i'm naive enough to believe that a university is a place where the "marketplace of ideas" concept should be encouraged.

Students wore black armbands to Scalia's address. Besides it being incredibly rude, what was the point of the black armband protest? Did somebody die?

[S]tudent groups, including the Pride Alliance, the Feminist Alliance, and College Democrats, decided that . . . [d]uring Justice Scalia's lecture, according to their official 'instructions,' members of these groups will wear black armbands to symbolize their mourning over the Justice's decisions. Other groups will wave homemade signs during the lecture, stand in protest, and chant slogans.

So childish.

A column by Ethan Davis of The Claremont Institute cites an example of the type of free discourse on might find at Amherst:

Austin Sarat, the professor of law, jurisprudence and social thought who was one of the signers of the faculty boycott letter [against Scalia], delivered a long monologue. 'The scope of legitimate debate on a college campus is narrower than in the world at-large,' he declared. 'Whether homosexuals are covered under the equal protection clause is not a debatable subject on a college campus.'

Legitimate discourse . . . begins after the acceptance of a radical left agenda.

These are the same academics who complain that their ideas are censored and repressed by the outside world. But conservatives who disagree are 'divisive,' and their 'reactionary' viewpoints cannot be tolerated.

Update: It's not always bad on every college campus. Look at this report from Powerline.

Posted by: annika at 07:58 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I am shocked, shocked to find commie pinko law-haters/group-thinkers at Amherst.

Posted by: Scipio at February 19, 2004 08:09 AM (14dkq)

2 I think there's a colossal difference between sitting in silent protest with a black armband (which is not inherently rude) and shouting someone down. When I was at Cal, I was very involved freshman year in anti-ROTC demonstrations (before your time, Annika, but some misguided folks actually burned down the ROTC building, Callaghan Hall, my freshperson year). I never liked the shouting, the self-righteous sloganeering. I wanted to hang with the folks who stood in silent protest. Trying to silence one's opponents is rude and unacceptable on a college campus. Quietly making a visual statement as to your displeasure is neither.

Posted by: Hugo at February 19, 2004 08:23 AM (gGPcB)

3 hmm, maybe the kids at amherst are protesting the death of credibility of a supreme court justice? face it, the outright refusal to step away from the cheney case does tend to raise an eyebrow or two. there is ex parte and then there is EX PARTE.. the supreme court should be far above all appearances of impropriety, and spending a weekend with someone who has a lot to lose in a case that might be decided by your vote does indeed smell a bit inappropriate. my 2 cents coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 19, 2004 03:07 PM (cfoFZ)

4 Scalia is the smartest and most articulate justice of my life time. Compare Scalia's concise arguments in the recent Michigan affirmative actions cases to the silly blather of O'Connor et al. The man's ability to get to the heart of the matter while always keeping the Constitution front and center is remarkable. He is a credit to the Court and to the country. I must also admit that I love the way he skewers the Left when they try to push their inane ideas down all our throats. He does not suffer fools gladly. Regarding Amherst, this is what the Left does. They are not now nor have they ever been interested in free speech and open debate. They are well aware that their ideas don't hold up when put to public scrutiny---especially when compared to the intellectually superior ideas of the Right. Moreover, when given a clear choice between liberal ideas and conservative ideas, Americans nearly always choose the conservative path. Blu

Posted by: Blu at February 19, 2004 04:21 PM (z3bzT)

5 ah Blu- please take off the blinders, even if only for a moment. scalia's actions have nothing to do with left or right. the point is that he is tossing his own credibility out the window by engaging in ex parte communication with someone who has a case in his court. there are two possible outcomes: he finds for cheney, thereby removing any chance that his opinions are not seen as partisan political crap. this only serves to taint his leagacy. i'm sure scalia does not want his legacy to be one that screams "bought and paid for". or he finds against cheney in order to save face, thereby screwing the conservative cause of keeping the vp's energy discussions secret. i'm pretty sure that no one on the republican side of the fence wants those dicussions made public, as it would indeed add to list of problems facing the current administration. if anything, consevatives should be very concerned about such a breech, as any short term victory (cheney winning his case) would be grossly overshadowed by the fact that this inappropriate behavior might well take the teeth out of any future rulings scalia might make. not to mention that the whole thing only serves to chip away at the honor and reputation of the supreme court. those nine are supposed to be above back room politics.. if i were a conservative, i'd be worried shitless that scalia will save his own reputation rather than look like a corrupt ass in the history books. :-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 19, 2004 05:17 PM (cfoFZ)

6 Judges hate to recuse themselves even when the conflict seems obvious. It's sad. Take for instance Judge Warren, who's going to hear the injunction case against what Mayor Newsom is doing in San Francisco. Judge Warren is gay. Conflict? He apparently doesn't think so.

Posted by: annika! at February 19, 2004 06:58 PM (XzMcX)

7 Annika, does that line of reasoning mean that Thurgood Marshall should have recused himself from hearing civil rights cases? Or that O'Connor and Ginsburg should recuse themselves from abortion cases? My dear girl, whom I love and admire, you come close to an unpleasant ad hominem argument there...

Posted by: Hugo at February 19, 2004 07:43 PM (tpO8x)

8 Anni, this is the ilk one attracts by hanging with lawyers. Who but a bunch of naval-gazers could pervert marriage by conferring it on perverts? BTW, I slipped past these people by staying drunk most of the time.

Posted by: Casca at February 19, 2004 08:02 PM (BRVtJ)

9 Annie- maybe judge warren should recuse himself if he was spending the weekend with the mayor of san francisco, chasing boys or whatever.. your intolerance and prejudice are showing here :-(. you assume that judge warren's sexual preferances will cloud his judgement when it comes to gays? thats exactly like saying that the revered scalia would not be able to judge fairly on a case involving mr bush sr's son, you know, the guy who was VP when Ronnie Regan appointed him to the court.. im with Hugo on this one. arf coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 19, 2004 10:34 PM (cfoFZ)

10 You don't understand the purpose of recusal. It doesn't matter whether Warren is influenced or not, if he upholds the marriages, his decision will be tainted by the perception of a conflict, the perception of bias, and for that reason he should recuse himself. Recusal is required not because of a fear of actual bias as much as a concern for perceived bias, which casts doubt on the independence of the judiciary. Apply your own reasoning to Scalia then, why don't you. If he tells us he won't be biased, why shouldn't you believe him and just leave it at that? You said it yourself, whichever way he decides will be tainted because of the perception. That's why he should recuse himself. It is certainly reasonable for somebody to believe that a gay judge, who is at present personally excluded from participation in marriage, might have a personal interest in the outcome of a case involving the expansion of marriage's definition. He stands to personally gain or lose a fundamental human right, depending on his decision. The Federal Code of Judicial Conduct says: "Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The California Code of Judicial Ethics says the same thing and adds that "a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification." And i'm tired of being called prejudiced when it comes to this issue. i support gay marriage. This is a huge issue and i want to see it done right, especially since most of the country is against it. How does that make me prejudiced? Oh, and, Thurgood Marshall, a personal hero of mine, didn't judge cases like Brown vs. Board of Education because he wouldn't have been allowed to! That's why he argued them instead. And if O'Connor and Ginsberg were pregnant and planning to have an abortion at the time they were hearing an abortion case, absolutely, they should recuse themselves. End of rant. You know i still love you guys.

Posted by: annika at February 20, 2004 12:11 AM (Aaao9)

11 First: I know the question was rhetorical, but I can't resist responding. The last time Scalia voted with the majority was January 26--the last time the Court issued opinions. Scalia's most famous for his dissents, but he doesn't always dissent! Second: I think the case for recusal for Scalia is much stronger than for Warren. There has to be a reasonable limit on what factors require recusal. Every judge has some interest in most cases, even if it's only in the sense that he agrees or disagrees with the legal principle(s) pertinent to the case. The fact that a judge may have a personal policy preference on an issue does not automatically give rise to a reasonable inference that the judge will allow that preference to improperly influence his decisions (imho, of course). I think the fact that a judge is a member of a minority group is too weak a basis, without more, for requiring that judge to recuse himself from cases involving that minority. It requires us to infer something about the judge's preferences based on his class membership (always an iffy proposition), AND to assume that this speculative, inferred preferences will improperly influence him. By that rationale, it would seem to me that no judge who's a member of a racial minority should ever sit in an employment discrimination or similar civil rights case brought by a minority (or at least a minority from the same group as the judge), no woman judge should ever sit in a sexual harassment case brought by a woman, and very few judges should ever sit in cases involving age discrimination (since judges tend to be older folks). Similarly judges who are devout adherents of most mainstream religions (like Scalia) shouldn't sit in cases involving asserted gay "rights" (since nearly every orthodox religion implicitly or explicitly condemns the idea of gay marriage), and judges who are gun owners shouldn't sit in cases construing the Second Amendment or state equivalents. Etc., etc., ad nauseum. Of course these are ultimately metaphysical arguments. There's no way for us to know to a certainty what is going on or will go on in a judge's head, so typically all we can do is make educated guesses about what's likely to unduly influence him/her. But those guesses can't be knee-jerk; there has to be a little reasoned analysis. It's not "unreasonable" in the common sense of the world to think that membership in a general class is prima facie evidence of potential bias significant enough to require recusal. But I think it's "unreasonable" in any sense of the word that takes into account the realities of our judicial system.

Posted by: Matt at February 20, 2004 07:24 AM (of2d1)

12 Chief Justice John Marshall refused to recuse himself from several cases that he had been involved in; one where he had been a lawyer for one side; another where he had been a judge on the case previously; and a third where he had a demonstrable pecuniary interest in the case. Quack quack, baby. Quack quack.

Posted by: Scipio at February 20, 2004 08:57 AM (14dkq)

13 well said Matt. and Annie- What i meant about the prejudice is along the lines of what Matt has written. you pre judged that warren cannot make a just ruling because he belongs to the minority involved in the case. the whole anology is some distance from scalia's predicament, when a week-end long ex parte sesssion with someone who has a case in front of him is most certainly a valid reason for a recusal. but.. from the arguments you have made, it appears that you would indeed agree that scalia's best course would be to recuse himself. if that is the case then i wonder how far off the kids at amherst actually are by letting scalia know their feelings. :-) tgif coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 20, 2004 09:08 AM (cfoFZ)

14 I suspect the little spoiled brats at Amherst aren't concerned about Scalia's friendship with Cheney and its impact on any potential court proceeding. Liberal students/professors engage in this type of intimidation constantly when conservatives come to campuses to speak regardless of the speakers content or current political activities. Interesting that one rarely (if ever) hears about conservatives shouting down liberals "thinkers." Probably has something to do with superior manners and intellect..... Blu

Posted by: Blu at February 20, 2004 10:06 AM (z3bzT)

15 blu- once again you have typed much and said little. :-( coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 20, 2004 10:31 AM (cfoFZ)

16 "my freshperson year" Is this a joke? If not it's really fucking sad!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 20, 2004 02:50 PM (tyrEY)

17 damm redneck.. you make even dumbass rednecks look like einsteins. the real definition of sad is that all you can add to this conversation is that bit of crap above. tisk tisk coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 20, 2004 03:39 PM (cfoFZ)

18 Brilliant rebuttal! When are you doing Vegas? Figures that an emasculated, no-dicked, eunuch bitch (only canine name which you're worthy) would think that's just swell. Stop bobbing for the "presents" the other inmates left you in the toilet. Now get off the Short Bus and take a nice high majestic dive onto the Interstate.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 21, 2004 10:04 AM (ZxF7q)

19 im tempted to keep you going, as you dig deeper each time. but alas, i feel for Annie and her fine blog.. i'm done. coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 21, 2004 12:24 PM (cfoFZ)

20 Coyote, Do you deny that the left engages in these shouting tactics infinitely more than the right? Anyway, my initial post was just to point out Scalia's brilliance in an age of mediocre supreme court judges. In addition, I noted that it's pathetic that the left constantly feels the need to try and silence conservatives in academic settings. I didn't have a position on whether Scalia should step down in this particular case. After reading your and others arguments about Scalia's need to recuse himself, I am persuaded that your position is correct. So, go easy on me. I haven't been posting much so I'm sure that my cognitive skills are rusty and in need of exercise Blu

Posted by: Blu at February 21, 2004 03:30 PM (s6c4t)

21 "i'm done" That's right, you have nothing so you run away again. Just like you slithered away at the Rott when you got your moonbat ass reamed every which way in record time. Haven't been back to tell everyone how above it you are (while never giving anything more substantial than "I'm rubber, you're glue) have you? You are a transparent simpleton under delusions of adequacy. You throw around weak shit and run away shocked the second your superiors slam you back. Nobody believes, or is impressed, with your tired, predictable "I'm so much smarter than you" response. Just because you always were in the "special" classes doesn't make you the least special. They lied to you! Now take you unearned superiority back to Dullard Underground.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 21, 2004 04:09 PM (bBR7c)

22 Ah, let him go... he's a tedious cockbiter.

Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2004 04:10 PM (BRVtJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment