I haven't done a random thoughts in a while and since there's quite a bit going on, I thought I'd give it a go.
1. Must be election time again
Remember the color codes? Yellow for be on edge. Orange for start to panic. Red for duck and cover, etc. We have fortunately left this little exercise in maintaining power by scaring the shit out of the populace behind. Or have we?
As the election nears, suddenly terror attacks are all the rage. It seems every week we hear reports of one attack or another broken up by law enforcement just in the nick of time. In the past few months we have heard about terrorists with guns and bombs in Washington, blowing up bridges in Cincinnati, and the latest version of the underwear bomb (this one fits into briefs instead of boxers). Add to this the stories about would-be terrorists hiding bombs inside their body and in pets on airplanes and you would think that we were under high alert all the time.
Of course what all these "attacks" have in common is they all involve either informants or undercover agents for the FBI or CIA. I'm starting to think that if it wasn't for these agencies, Al Qaeda may not be active at all.
This isn't anything new, of course. Once again, the Obama administration is taking a page from GWB when it comes to foreign policy. In 2004, I fully expected a "red" warning in the weeks running up to election. Of course they didn't need to because Bin Laden did the work for them by releasing an ominous video just before the election which served the administration's purposes just fine.
Ever since 9/11, we have looked for real leadership in this nation. Instead of leaders we keep having charlatans selling us security in exchange for our rights. In 2008, we thought we were getting an FDR. But instead of "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," we got another dose of "The only thing we have is fear."
2. Stop!
There are a lot of reasons to criticize Mitt Romney. If you don't feel you have enough, wait minute and he'll say something to add to your cache.
But there is one thing that I am hearing more and more commentators on the left using and that is attacking his faith. STOP! We're better than this, people. There is absolutely no reason to make Mittens's Mormonism an issue in this race and the more it is done, the more it is going to give rise to a backlash against the left.
Let the right turn themselves into pretzels over their own discomfort with Romney's religion. We simply do not need to engage in this type of outrageous bigotry.
3. A Winning Strategy
Amid all of the bluster and non-issues that are being portrayed in the media's coverage of the presidential election, there is one issue out there that almost no one is talking about. It also just happens to be an issue that is ripe for the picking for the President's reelection team.
One thing has been constant in every election across the world so far this year and that has been the people's rejection of austerity in favor of economic policies focusing on growth and jobs. This election should be about the same thing.
It is clear that the Romney camp is a fan of austerity measures. This will become abundantly clear if he picks someone like Paul Ryan, the biggest proponent of such measures, as his VP pick. They are promoting economic measures which focus on slashing government spending and programs, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, and cutting taxes for the wealthy. It doesn't seem to matter that these policies have never worked anywhere and are currently throwing the UK and most of Europe back into recession.
In his first term, Obama has been all too eager to give into neo-Liberal economic policies and focus ostensibly on deficit reduction rather than job creation. So it is quite possible that he won't be willing to go all in against these austerity measures like he should.
We know from his first campaign that Obama is a master at populist rhetoric even if he isn't willing to follow through with populist policies once elected. He could pull this off and if he and the Democratic party ride the wave of anti-austerity opinion, they could end up taking back the house as well.
Of course whether he and the rest of the democrats would follow through on this once elected remains to be seen and past performance does not leave me feeling optimistic.
4. Silver Lining of the Week
I'm trying to be more of an optimist. So, rather than ranting and raving about what an absolute idiot Jamie Dimon is, or how evil he is, or how his head should be chopped off, I will look on the bright side of his bank's $2 Billion loss on a wild bet from a division which was supposed to be helping the bank avoid losses.
On the bright side, at least this guarantees that he won't be Obama's treasury secretary in a second term. See, there's hope for the economy yet.
5. My Cheap Unfunny Pundit Schtick
I've noticed that in order to be accepted in the pantheon of punditry that you have to have a rhetorical gimmick that you and your fans think is hilarious but in reality is pretty unfunny. You also have to use it ad nauseum just so your base can yuck it up as much as possible while getting maximum eye roll from everyone else. An example would be Sarah Palin's "lame stream media". There's another right wing asshole whose name I can't remember who always says "New York Slimes.". Funny stuff, right? I mean it must have taken you all of 10 seconds and the comedy sensibility of a 12 year-old to come up with those.
So, taking a cue from these pillars of political commentary, I've decided to join the fray. I've done it in the past a little by referring to Fox News as Fox Comedy (ok, I wasn't trying to be funny, I just didn't really think that they were really serious. I mean, c'mon, right?).
So, because I want to be accepted by this esteemed fraternity, I will from now on refer to Republicans as Banana Republicans and Democrats as Plutocrats. See, aren't I funny? I can hear your knees slapping already, right? I know!!!!
On second thought, perhaps I'll just stick to not trying to insult the intelligence of my audience, as small as you may be.
'Til next time...
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Cease and Desist
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOEL SCHWARTZ
May 10, 2012
Rev. Sean Harris
Berean Baptist Church
Fayetteville, NC
RE: Cease and desist
Dear Rev. Harris:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Jesus Christ. Yes, that Jesus Christ. The Big Kahuna, the Son of Man, your Lord and Savior, THE Jesus Christ.
It has come to my client's attention that you have been making certain statements and encouraging certain behaviors while invoking His name. Specifically, in a recent sermon, my client states that you encouraged your flock to crack the wrists of boys when they display effeminate behavior, then to punch said boys when they play with dolls. Furthermore, you then encouraged your congregation to make said boys dig a ditch because this is what boys do. You went on to state that when their daughters start acting butch they were to rein them in and make the walk, talk, dress, and smell like a girl. Again, I reiterate that this was all done in my client's name.
It goes without saying that my client is rather upset by your invoking of His name in order to encourage such un-Christlike behavior. Mr. Christ takes His name and reputation very seriously. By attributing this type of behavior to Him, you have harmed my client's reputation in His community and caused serious damage to Him.
We have no choice but to demand that you cease and desist from any further such invocation of my client's name thereby further damaging my client's reputation in the community. If you insist on continuing to invoke my client's name for such despicable behavior we will have no choice but to take action against you. My client has authorized to file suit against you for defamation of character, violation of my client's right of publicity, and for placing my client in a false light publicly. If this doesn't convince you, my client has invoked his rights as a Diety, wherein he can, well, just trust me, you don't want to go there (does the word "smite" mean anything to you?).
You are not alone in this. My client has retained me to send out quite a few of these letters to others in your position. I've been quite busy lately and this work now accounts for my entire practice. But, don't worry, my client has deep pockets. He's got more money than God. Well, actually, he has exactly as much money as God.
But, I digress. In summary, I expect that you will comply with my client's demands. Failure to do so will result in you hearing from me again, or you may just be hearing from my client directly.
Yours very truly,
Joel Schwartz, Esq.
May 10, 2012
Rev. Sean Harris
Berean Baptist Church
Fayetteville, NC
RE: Cease and desist
Dear Rev. Harris:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Jesus Christ. Yes, that Jesus Christ. The Big Kahuna, the Son of Man, your Lord and Savior, THE Jesus Christ.
It has come to my client's attention that you have been making certain statements and encouraging certain behaviors while invoking His name. Specifically, in a recent sermon, my client states that you encouraged your flock to crack the wrists of boys when they display effeminate behavior, then to punch said boys when they play with dolls. Furthermore, you then encouraged your congregation to make said boys dig a ditch because this is what boys do. You went on to state that when their daughters start acting butch they were to rein them in and make the walk, talk, dress, and smell like a girl. Again, I reiterate that this was all done in my client's name.
It goes without saying that my client is rather upset by your invoking of His name in order to encourage such un-Christlike behavior. Mr. Christ takes His name and reputation very seriously. By attributing this type of behavior to Him, you have harmed my client's reputation in His community and caused serious damage to Him.
We have no choice but to demand that you cease and desist from any further such invocation of my client's name thereby further damaging my client's reputation in the community. If you insist on continuing to invoke my client's name for such despicable behavior we will have no choice but to take action against you. My client has authorized to file suit against you for defamation of character, violation of my client's right of publicity, and for placing my client in a false light publicly. If this doesn't convince you, my client has invoked his rights as a Diety, wherein he can, well, just trust me, you don't want to go there (does the word "smite" mean anything to you?).
You are not alone in this. My client has retained me to send out quite a few of these letters to others in your position. I've been quite busy lately and this work now accounts for my entire practice. But, don't worry, my client has deep pockets. He's got more money than God. Well, actually, he has exactly as much money as God.
But, I digress. In summary, I expect that you will comply with my client's demands. Failure to do so will result in you hearing from me again, or you may just be hearing from my client directly.
Yours very truly,
Joel Schwartz, Esq.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Do North Carolina's Marriage Laws Violate Religious Freedom?
Jennifer and Renee met in college. They have maintained a monogamous relationship for many years, settled in the same city, have lived together and made a life together. They recently found a church in the city in North Carolina where they live which welcomed them as full members of their church and they have become active in their church's life. Recently, they decided that they wanted to solemnize their relationship and have their minister perform a wedding ceremony in their new church. They knew it was not legal for them to get married in North Carolina, but they wanted to have the ceremony nonetheless. They spoke with their minister and he had some hesitation. "You know, I can't perform a marriage ceremony without a marriage license and you can't get one of those in North Carolina," said the minister.
Undaunted, they went to their register of deeds and applied for a marriage license and were of course denied. They returned to their minister and after much thought and prayer, he decided that he would go ahead and perform the ceremony. "What harm could it do," he thought, "it's not a legal marriage, but I want you two to feel like you are full and equal members of our church community as we all consider you to be."
The ceremony was quite the event and even got coverage from the local media.
The next day, however, the minister found himself under arrest and facing a fine and possible imprisonment for performing the ceremony.
Sound far fetched? Well, under North Carolina law the above scenario appears to be quite possible.
And I'm not even talking about the wrong-headed and unnecessary constitutional amendment that the religious right came up with to try to spur turnout to the polls. I'm talking about the regular, old, run of the mill North Carolina statutes that cover the process that one has to go through to get married.
North Carolina's marriage laws are quite antiquated and painfully heterosexual. They are contained in Chapter 51 of the General Statutes.
According to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 51-1 the requisites for a marriage are as follows:
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
So, let's look at that first statute a bit. We know that it's only for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. You have to be serious (No Elvis impersonators here!). And the only persons who can perform a marriage are a magistrate, an ordained minister, or an Indian Chief. OK. Sounds fairly innocuous.
The next section 51-1.2 states that marriages between persons of the same gender (interesting use of the wrong term -- I think they meant sex), even if performed in other states, are not valid in North Carolina. You know, for those for whom that whole thing in the preceding section about being between a man and a woman wasn't clear.
Of course, if those two sections still weren't quite clear enough, the Amendment to the state constitution stating that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, we get it. The State really doesn't like gay people. Enough, already! (Except of course, that a lot of us do, but that's beside the point).
It starts to get a little bit dicey, though when you look further down in the statutes. Section 51-6 states that a Solemnization without a license is unlawful. "No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solmnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant." OK, those of us who have read the constitution are starting to get a little uncomfortable now.
If that wasn't bad enough, the next section, 51-7, makes doing so a criminal offense. "Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
WHOA, NELLY!!!!!! HOOOOOOOOLD EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE, MISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says in its very first sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Usually government intrusions into religion arguably violate the first clause -- the establishment clause -- as they seem to be an attempt to write into law the beliefs of one religion at the expense of others. But North Carolina's marriage laws seem to violate the second clause -- the free exercise clause.
Many religions accept and celebrate gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered members and clergy. Three mainstream protestant religions in America, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), now accept openly gay members and clergy. Along with this many Jewish congregations along with Unitarians and various other denominations recognize and accept gay members and celebrants. Along with this, in the States where it is legal, many of these religious congregations also perform same sex marriages as part of their beliefs.
But what if a minister of any of these, or any other religion wants to perform a ceremony for their members, even though it won't have any legal affect, simply because they want to celebrate and solemnize for their own religious purposes their members relationship, commitment and love for one another and recognize their relationship as being equal to the heterosexual members of their congregation and in the eyes of God as they believe? What right does the government have not only to tell a minister that he or she doesn't have the right to do this, but that if they do, they can go to jail and have a criminal record?
This certainly gives support to the Libertarian argument that the State has no business in marriage to begin with. They argue that marriages should be left to the realm of religion and not be a matter for the State at all. Of course, this would never happen because if it did, then same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere (which I would add would be fine for most Libertarians, the Paul family notwithstanding).
Look, I'm fine with the State of North Carolina saying that for a marriage to be recognized by the State and for the couples who want to have the legal protections that the State grants to married couples that they have to follow the statutes set forth (actually, I'm not fine with it, but I think they have a right to do so). But where I think North Carolina crosses the line is dictating to religious leaders how and to whom they can grant the blessings of their church, and in many, if not most religions, marriage is one of the major blessings that a church can bestow on its members. To deny this fundamental right to religions in our state, and even criminalize the performing of a ceremony outside of the dictates of the State, I believe is a clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I'd love to see this put to the test. It certainly would cause some consternation among the anti-gay citizens of our great state and that is always a good thing. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on this subject and whether or not you agree with my analysis of this issue.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and discuss this.
Undaunted, they went to their register of deeds and applied for a marriage license and were of course denied. They returned to their minister and after much thought and prayer, he decided that he would go ahead and perform the ceremony. "What harm could it do," he thought, "it's not a legal marriage, but I want you two to feel like you are full and equal members of our church community as we all consider you to be."
The ceremony was quite the event and even got coverage from the local media.
The next day, however, the minister found himself under arrest and facing a fine and possible imprisonment for performing the ceremony.
Sound far fetched? Well, under North Carolina law the above scenario appears to be quite possible.
And I'm not even talking about the wrong-headed and unnecessary constitutional amendment that the religious right came up with to try to spur turnout to the polls. I'm talking about the regular, old, run of the mill North Carolina statutes that cover the process that one has to go through to get married.
North Carolina's marriage laws are quite antiquated and painfully heterosexual. They are contained in Chapter 51 of the General Statutes.
According to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 51-1 the requisites for a marriage are as follows:
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
So, let's look at that first statute a bit. We know that it's only for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. You have to be serious (No Elvis impersonators here!). And the only persons who can perform a marriage are a magistrate, an ordained minister, or an Indian Chief. OK. Sounds fairly innocuous.
The next section 51-1.2 states that marriages between persons of the same gender (interesting use of the wrong term -- I think they meant sex), even if performed in other states, are not valid in North Carolina. You know, for those for whom that whole thing in the preceding section about being between a man and a woman wasn't clear.
Of course, if those two sections still weren't quite clear enough, the Amendment to the state constitution stating that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, we get it. The State really doesn't like gay people. Enough, already! (Except of course, that a lot of us do, but that's beside the point).
It starts to get a little bit dicey, though when you look further down in the statutes. Section 51-6 states that a Solemnization without a license is unlawful. "No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solmnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant." OK, those of us who have read the constitution are starting to get a little uncomfortable now.
If that wasn't bad enough, the next section, 51-7, makes doing so a criminal offense. "Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
WHOA, NELLY!!!!!! HOOOOOOOOLD EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE, MISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says in its very first sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Usually government intrusions into religion arguably violate the first clause -- the establishment clause -- as they seem to be an attempt to write into law the beliefs of one religion at the expense of others. But North Carolina's marriage laws seem to violate the second clause -- the free exercise clause.
Many religions accept and celebrate gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered members and clergy. Three mainstream protestant religions in America, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), now accept openly gay members and clergy. Along with this many Jewish congregations along with Unitarians and various other denominations recognize and accept gay members and celebrants. Along with this, in the States where it is legal, many of these religious congregations also perform same sex marriages as part of their beliefs.
But what if a minister of any of these, or any other religion wants to perform a ceremony for their members, even though it won't have any legal affect, simply because they want to celebrate and solemnize for their own religious purposes their members relationship, commitment and love for one another and recognize their relationship as being equal to the heterosexual members of their congregation and in the eyes of God as they believe? What right does the government have not only to tell a minister that he or she doesn't have the right to do this, but that if they do, they can go to jail and have a criminal record?
This certainly gives support to the Libertarian argument that the State has no business in marriage to begin with. They argue that marriages should be left to the realm of religion and not be a matter for the State at all. Of course, this would never happen because if it did, then same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere (which I would add would be fine for most Libertarians, the Paul family notwithstanding).
Look, I'm fine with the State of North Carolina saying that for a marriage to be recognized by the State and for the couples who want to have the legal protections that the State grants to married couples that they have to follow the statutes set forth (actually, I'm not fine with it, but I think they have a right to do so). But where I think North Carolina crosses the line is dictating to religious leaders how and to whom they can grant the blessings of their church, and in many, if not most religions, marriage is one of the major blessings that a church can bestow on its members. To deny this fundamental right to religions in our state, and even criminalize the performing of a ceremony outside of the dictates of the State, I believe is a clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I'd love to see this put to the test. It certainly would cause some consternation among the anti-gay citizens of our great state and that is always a good thing. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on this subject and whether or not you agree with my analysis of this issue.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and discuss this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)