Category: Ranting

President Bush is getting his workout today, again flinging around the term “activist judges”. It’s easy to label someone he doesn’t like. Call them names, put them down, and maybe they’ll go away. If not, at least he’ll have “the people” behind him. The majority wins, no matter what.

Consider this:

“People need to be involved in this decision,” Bush said. “Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I’m watching it carefully.”

The courts are led by people. Those people are trained to interpret the law. When the law conflicts with the Constitution, as it may or may not in this case, it’s the predefined role of the Judiciary to resolve it.

There is a term in software development used when something doesn’t work as hoped but works according to requirements. The term is “works as designed”. Some people wish to amend the Constitution, which is changing the requirements. Until we amend the Constitution to include the belief that all citizens are not equal, the legal system is working as designed. I’m being repetitive in this point, but I fail to understand the error in the process.

Concerning marriage licenses being issued in San Francisco, President Bush had this to say:

“I have watched carefully what’s happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,” Bush said. “I have consistently stated that I’ll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision.”

Marriage between a man and a woman is not under attack. Equal protection and privilege under the law is the issue.

The trouble that President Bush is having seems to be the morality of same-sex marriage. The Constitution, while influenced by the Bible, is still the supreme document of the United States. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect every citizen, and are slowly being interpreted to apply to every citizen. Until everyone enjoys the benefits, situations like this will continue.

The civil institution of marriage must be dictated by the Constitution’s equal protection. However, any church that chooses not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies is entitled to exercise that right. The law can’t and shouldn’t force religion to change. But the separation of church and state exists for a reason. Trying to encode theology into law isn’t appropriate when the theology involves suggested, non-physical harm and negative consequences.

I know I keep writing about this, but it’s what I care about right now, so this is what I have to give.

Regarding the same-sex marriage challenge underway in California, I want to comment on this argument from the Alliance Defense Fund‘s legal brief:

If a public official that is part of an administrative agency believes a statute is unconstitutional, he or she may not challenge it by open defiance. If any government official may ignore laws at will, laws have no force, and there is no liberty.

I’ve already expressed my views on this, so I’m not going to rehash them. I’m amused that their lawyers wrote such a poorly thought out brief. Allow me to pick a few nits with those two sentences.

First, “if a public official that…” is incorrect. Public officials are people, not things. “That” should be “who”.

Second, any government official ignoring the law doesn’t imply that laws have no force. Anyone can do anything at any time. I can speed while driving on the highway. You can steal Danielle’s TV and dryer while she’s traveling. The distinction they ignored is that there may be consequences.

Civil disobedience has brought about change when rational arguments couldn’t. This act by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom may work. It may fail. The point is that he believes he is upholding California’s constitution. Now that some of the citizenry disagrees, the courts will decide.

Third, when laws have no force, there is liberty, contrary to the Alliance Defense Fund’s argument. Without laws, we’re all free to do everything without repercussions. However, when laws have no force, we’re likely to have anarchy. That would’ve been the logical conclusion to the argument, not the absence of liberty.

Now consider this:

Randy Thomasson, founder of Campaign for California Families, called the marriages “a political stunt by an out-of-control mayor who obviously wants to make law by bending the constitution.”

…

“This is as much about protecting our system of government and respect for the law as it is about the protection of marriage,” Thomasson said.

Again ignoring my beliefs on this issue, I think our system of government is working as designed. San Francisco saw an act of civil disobedience that many believe to be wrong. What response did they give? Did they march on San Francisco’s City Hall and burn it down? Did they tar and feather Mayor Newsom?

None of this happened. No coup, no chaos, no anarchy. The courts will decide, which is how disagreements are resolved in America when both sides can’t agree.

I can’t figure out how this is destroying America.

I voted for General Wes Clark in today’s Virginia Democratic Primary. I admit that I have not voted in every election since I turned 18, but I always vote in Presidential and Congressional elections. Voting is good, mmmmmmmkay.

In elections, I’ve always voted for Democrats. In my first elections, it was because I considered myself a democrat. However, I’ve always had an independent view. Socially, I believe in hands off involvement. The government’s job in social issues is to protect civil rights, not to suppress them. Economically, capitalism has worked for more than two centuries, in spite of politicians. I want a responsible tax policy (flat tax) and a balanced budget. I have simple political ideals and goals.

The 2000 Presidential election was the first time I stretched my mind around my ritual “Vote Democrat” mindset. Despite Joe Lieberman’s censorship rhetoric, I voted for Gore in the election because he was the least objectionable to me. That year, I also voted in the Republican primary.

The only “requirement” for voting in that primary was that I acknowledge, on my honor, that I would not vote in another party’s primary. Since the Democrats weren’t holding a primary because Gore was the incumbent nominee, I had no problem signing that. (Yes, I had to sign a piece of paper. I didn’t have to sign anything today.)

In that primary, I voted for John McCain as a vote against George W. Bush. Walking into the polling station, I felt weird voting Republican. Walking out, I felt liberated from the rigid party mentality. Because of social issues, I’ll still be surprised if I ever vote Republican, but if the Republicans nominate a social “live and let live” candidate, I’d consider it.

At times, I’ve thought my reliance on social issues might be too narrow, but I’m comfortable with it. No individual social issue will rule my vote, but a collection of them will. I believe that the free market will ultimately determine the economy and bad economic politicians will be voted out. That doesn’t happen with social issues. Bad policy becomes law and then takes years to repeal or overturn. Civil liberties and freedom are the basis for America. Without them, we’re no different than a common dictatorship.

Today, we’re moving in the wrong direction. Censorship is encouraged to preserve family values. Our president wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. A few years ago, the Congress proposed a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Rights are under attack and the right to vote is every citizen’s first defense.

The Constitution has been amended once to take away citizen’s rights. Prohibition was a disaster which was later repealed. Any new amendment reducing liberty is a crime against the spirit of the Constitution, yet this great nation has considered it twice in the last 5 years. It’s time for responsibility.

My purpose is not to make anyone agree with me. Obviously I believe I’m correct, but the point is that because someone doesn’t agree with my views, that doesn’t permit them to take my rights away. Your reward for living in America is that you get to live your life as you wish. Your penalty is that I get to live as I wish.

I don’t think it’ll make good business sense to start showing breasts on prime time television, but the law shouldn’t remove the right if public sentiment changes. I don’t want to marry a man, but someone else wants to show that commitment to the man he loves. I don’t want to burn the flag, but someone else believes that is how she should express herself. If any of those actions happen, who has been harmed? No one will suffer physical injury, so our government’s role is satisfied. As for non-physical injury and mental anguish, that is up to the individual. If you disagree, turn off the TV, don’t associate with homosexuals, fly 3 flags in your front yard. You have that right. Do you mind if I take it away?

Vote in 2004.

I need to rant one more time about the Super Bowl halftime show. This post will be disjointed because I’m going to quote this article and comment on each quote. So it begins…

Executives at PepsiCo, historically one of the largest and most successful Super Bowl advertisers, are threatening to pull out of next year’s Super Bowl if they’re not given clear assurances that such an incident won’t happen again. “We’re very serious about this,” PepsiCo spokesman Mark Dollins said.

PepsiCo executives also were disappointed that viewers were talking more about the Jackson incident than the commercials. “It speaks to our extreme disappointment that all that quality work has been overshadowed,” Dollins said. The various PepsiCo brands, including Frito-Lay, Sierra Mist and Pepsi, aired six commercials on Sunday’s broadcast.

I know why people are talking about this more than the commercials: the commercials sucked. And what Janet Jackson revealed was no worse than some of the commercials Pepsi has aired. And Pepsi has no right to be indignant. Until they stop selling sugar water that rots bodies, they aren’t allowed to be indignant about a semi-bare breast rotting minds.

The incident shocked a society that seems to be ever more unshockable, but this time it might have gone too far for many Americans. On one side of the debate: outraged citizens who immediately lit up the CBS switchboard with complaints.

Their sentiments were no doubt much like those of M.B. Ellis, 78, owner of a small publishing house in Mobile, Ala., who wrote in a letter to USA TODAY’s Sports section: “What a depressing display of filth, obscenity, cruelty, and just plain stupidity! What ever happened to dignity and good taste in this country?”

“What’s in line for next year’s halftime show?” asked Ed Zak, 43, a father of three from New Smyrna Beach, Fla. “How about two ‘artists’ having sex at the 50-yard line – all in the name of NFL entertainment. When you do, please give us a head’s up so I can prepare myself how to explain to my kids what they watched.”

I’m not unshockable, but I’m not shocked by this. This is stupid. And if you’re so upset, why write to USA Today? What can they do about it?

The Super Bowl’s halftime show itself has become something to watch as it has become edgier. It has gone from marching bands and Up With People to attention-getting pop stars in elaborately produced spectacles. And it’s gobbled up by the viewers.

Because lemmings love a good crapfest.

Sex literally sells: A piece of jewelry similar to the one Jackson was wearing on her breast was available on eBay before the day was out. A sun shield design for pierced nipples had an opening bid of $19.99 and was touted “as seen on TV!”

Did it literally sell? Are people buying them or are they just for sale? There is a difference.

For its part, AOL, which spent an estimated $10 million to sponsor the halftime show and broadcast several ads and promos during and before the game, said it’s not very happy with the outcome. The company dropped plans to offer Internet access to rebroadcasts of the show “in deference to our membership and the fans,” said Ruth Sarfaty, an AOL spokeswoman.

“In deference” to their membership and the fans? Dear AOL: I already have a mommy, thanks. Since you think I need a new one, I don’t ask her approval when I want to watch something on TV or the internet. I’m never going to ask for your approval.

Parents Television Council president Brent Bozell rejected the denials. “The performance, including the offensive material, was obviously scripted,” he said in a statement issued by his parents advocacy group. “We find Justin Timberlake’s apology and explanation to be dishonest and disingenuous.”

I’ll group this with the next quote.

The Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention also denounced the show. Council president Tony Perkins urged the FCC on Monday to hold CBS accountable. “CBS should know better than to turn the halftime entertainment over to MTV, which relishes its ability to shock. CBS would do well to adhere to the adage ‘If you sleep with dogs, you’ll get fleas.’ I am sure there is a lot of scratching going on at CBS today.”

Thanks for judging people. Justin Timberlake is a liar and “CBS should know better”. Family values protecting our nation. Kick ass.

Some ad experts didn’t buy official explanations, either. Jerry Della Femina, ad guru and CEO of Della Femina, Rothschild, Jeary & Partners, a Manhattan-based ad agency, said Monday that even if the networks weren’t aware that Jackson was going to bare her breast, CBS should have known what to expect.

“When CBS put these people on the halftime show, they had to know what they would get. They are screaming, ‘This is terrible.’ It’s like Claude Rains discovering there’s gambling at Rick’s in Casablanca: ‘I’m shocked, shocked.’ For CBS it’s a little too late.”

This is a brilliant PR stunt. Get your ad agency talked about while moralizing. Maybe they can produce ads for The Family Research Council.

But not everyone was unhappy. TiVo Inc., which makes digital video recorders enabling instantaneous replay, said viewership of the revealing moment nearly doubled that of the rest of the broadcast, the biggest jump the company has ever measured.

And how does TiVo know this? Because they monitor their customers. Think about that for a moment and tell me that the halftime show is our nation’s biggest concern.

“We have no say over halftime entertainment,” said Jeff Kuhlman, spokesman for the Cadillac division of General Motors, which aired three spots during the game and was the official vehicle of the Super Bowl. “We think the NFL will do what’s right for their brand. Quite frankly, we’re very comfortable having our brand aligned with their brand.”

I don’t own a Cadillac, but I applaud them for being reasonable about this.

FYI, I also know why Cadillac is being reasonable about this. They’ve thought about their commercials from the Super Bowl. They realize that the “our car is faster than the speed of sound commercial was illogical. If the car was faster than the speed of sound, it would’ve taken a moment for the sound to catch up. That concept is cool. But the driver’s voice wouldn’t have been delayed because the car was sitting still when he said “wow”. His voice should’ve been heard, followed by the car’s road noise catching up to the car.

This entire scandal is tiresome. I imagine that the rest of the world is laughing at us. To that, I say this: Grow up, America.

I missed the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. Even with the controversy, I don’t regret missing it. At the time, I was ticked off by the commercials and uninspired by the “superstars” scheduled to perform. I wanted nothing to do with the crapfest that is the Super Bowl halftime show. (For what it’s worth, I watched the special features on my rented copy of the spectacular The Real World You Never Saw: Paris). With that warning, I present to you my view on the fallout from the chaos.

Every news outlet has the same article covering the outrage over this, but I read it in The Washington Post. I don’t care about the hype that goes with this and the blame being placed at the doors of CBS. By all accounts, they handled the situation well by turning the cameras away immediately and not belaboring the point in the broadcast booth. Assuming those accounts are true, that’s the way to be professional about the unexpected. What I disagree with is the initial response from the FCC Chairman. In particular, this:

“I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl,” Powell said. “Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation’s children, parents and citizens deserve better.”

He told the commission to open an investigation, promising it would be “thorough and swift.” Such an investigation could result in a fine of up to $27,500 or — if the FCC applied the sanction to each CBS station — in the millions.

Even though I believe America is too puritanical about nudity on television, I agree that the Super Bowl halftime show isn’t the place to show naked people. I have a problem with the deplorable intention behind Mr. Powell’s “thorough and swift” investigation. There’s no question that it aired, so that fact isn’t in dispute. However, mollifying the outraged public with a swift boot up someone’s ass isn’t the way to deal with this.

Fairness is still the overriding principle needed in the eventual resolution. The public doesn’t care how this is handled. If the resolution isn’t decided before tomorrow morning’s broadcast of the Today Show, no one will care. The FCC needs to take it’s time to determine the facts, then allow CBS the opportunity to resolve the matter.

If CBS was unaware that this would occur, they shouldn’t be fined for an accident. They could’ve put the halftime show on a delay, but I’m assuming that was never deemed necessary before now. I have no doubt that future telecasts of the halftime show will be on a delay, which is a smart business reaction to this unforeseen negative event.

Which leads to this:

The FCC has come under fire from lawmakers and outside groups who say the agency hasn’t done enough to shield the public from indecent programming on radio and TV.

An excessive response from the FCC isn’t the way to do this. The primary responsibility of regulatory/legislative bodies in America is to enforce standards, whatever the issue. (I contend that American standards on this issue are wrong, but I’m making a general point.) The FCC needs to allow the broadcast networks to self-police themselves for future Super Bowls before clamping down with action.

Finally, I know we all waited with anticipation to know this:

At the White House, President Bush said he missed the show.

“Saw the first half, did not see the halftime — I was preparing for the day and fell asleep,” he told reporters Monday after a Cabinet meeting.

I love that our president couldn’t stay awake long enough to finish watching the game.