Musing's musings

So what's next?

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that corporations' right to free speech (in the form of campaign contributions, anyway) cannot be "abridged" by the Federal Elections Commission. This decision is but the latest in a century-long line of cases that effectively treats corporate entities as persons. So, to borrow a rhetorical device from the conservative majority that handed down this piece of drivel today, how long is it going to be until the Supreme Court recognizes a corporation's right to marry? (And how will they decide which corporations are male and which are female, since the federal government only recognizes "opposite" marriages?) Will the same five justices grant certiorari when a corporation is sentenced to death? (And, if they don't, how will the execution be carried out?)

I've already seen one call for a constitutional amendment to overturn this unwise decision by the Roberts court. I've also seen a couple more calls for Congress to pass legislation to undo the worst bits of it. But I have a simpler and quicker solution. If corporations are going to be recognized as persons for the purpose of making campaign contributions, then simply pass a law requiring them to adhere to the same contribution limits as everybody else: $2,400 per candidate per election, $30,400 to a national party committee per year, $10,000 per year to state, local, and/or district committees (combined), and $5,000 to any other committee.

Sex, money, and amateur sports

Last August, I wrote about the two University of Nebraska wrestlers who were dropped from the squad after news became public that they had posed nude on a pornographic website that largely caters to gay men. The two wrestlers, Paul Donahoe and Kenny Jordan, were both interviewed (along with several other figures associated with the scandal) for an episode of ESPN's Outside the Lines which aired this morning.

While ESPN's reporting suggests that there may have been more to the story than was apparent 10 months ago, I nevertheless found the rationalizing of the Nebraska officials they interviewed about the dismissals both specious and self-serving. Their major concern, at least as expressed in the few public statements they have been willing to make about the incident and the very few documents the university was willing to release in response to ESPN's request under the Freedom of Information Act, seems to have been the damage done to the school's image by having two of its student-athletes appear in pornographic videos.

Considering that a third of the athletes on the Nebraska wrestling squad over the last two years have faced criminal charges--and yet were not dropped from the team--that reasoning seems mighty thin to me. When you consider that Tom Osborne, now the athletic director at Nebraska and head coach of its football team in the 1990s, handed out only token punishments to stars on his football team (suspension for one spring exhibition game for Christian Peter, who racked up eight separate arrests and at least one conviction, and an on-again, off-again suspension for Lawrence Phillips after he assaulted and injured an ex-girlfriend), the rationalizations look thinner still.

The ignorant tight-ass club strikes again

Returning to a theme I touched on in my last post, the perniciously perverse American attitude toward sex is really beginning to get on my nerves. John Edwards admits to having had a fling with a woman not his wife, and people who would ordinarily be leaping to his defense against the Bible-thumpers and the Puritan wannabes are suddenly howling for his head because he was almost sorta-kinda-maybe the Democratic nominee frontrunner candidate for the presidency.

And now, via Towleroad, I hear that two wrestlers have been dismissed from the University of Nebraska team for "posing naked for videos and photographs on an Internet pornography site." The wrestling coach was quoted in the AP story as follows:

The history of behavior of these men, including the current matter, does not reflect the standard of excellence we aspire to on and off the mat. We have outstanding student-athletes in our program and we will move forward in a positive manner toward our goals.

I want to personally apologize for any embarrassment that may have been caused for our athletic department, the university and our fans.

The story further alleges that, along with a history of "past transgressions" in Lincoln that included underage drinking, trespassing, assault, and maintaining a disorderly house, the two violated an NCAA rule that, according to the Nebraska compliance director, "prohibits athletes from appearing in pictures for commercial use." I'm betting, however, that it has far more to do with the "embarrassment" that the coach alluded to than it does to any regulation--and, further, that the only reason anybody is or might possibly be embarrassed about this incident is that the two men appeared on a gay internet pornography site.

Wankers

If the events of the past week are any indication, clearly I should have extended my vacation. It was really quite pleasant not to wake up every morning to further grim economic and political news, and to stay in touch with things that really matter--like friends, and nature, and good food. Unfortunately, as is always the case, time away ends and we have to come, willy-nilly, back to what we are pleased to designate the "real" world.

It seems that one of the things that happened while I was gone was a brouhaha between PZ Myers and William Donohue and his so-called Catholic League. (No, I am absolutely not linking to either one of them: I categorically refuse to drive any more traffic to either place. Use teh Google if you want to get more details.) The brouhaha actually spilled over into last week, and since I've been commenting on it all over Left Blogistan, I figured I might as well write about it here where at least I can keep track of all the comments a little easier.

To reduce a great deal of sound and fury that might have signified little or nothing had not two ginormous egos gotten involved into something a little less cumbersome, here's a quick summary of the events as I understand them. A college student in Florida (who may or may not be Catholic; I haven't seen any clarification on that point) went to Mass and took Communion. But instead of consuming the Eucharist, he held on to it to show a friend (or so he says). This action upset a few people at the parish in question, and apparently there was some remonstration with the young man, who did, eventually, give back the host in question. Had it stayed there, no one not involved in the parish in question would likely ever have heard about it.

It did not, however, stay there. Bill DonoWho, blowhard and media-hog extraordinaire, got involved. I don't know how he found out about the incident, but he did, and he and some of his minions began calling for disciplinary action against the student in question. It is at least alleged that some of the people from DonoWho's group made death threats against the student--he has gone on record as saying that he felt his life was in danger. DonoWho himself merely called for the student to be disciplined, and hoped that expulsion would be on the table as one of the possible penalties.

That this reaction on the part of DonoWho and his minions is over-the-top is self-evident. But here, too, this mess might have stopped--had the other supersized ego not gotten involved: to wit, PZ Myers. PZ, for those of you who are not familiar with him, is a biology professor at a small state institution in Minnesota. He is also an avowed atheist. I want to make it very clear before continuing that I have absolutely not the slightest problem with PZ's atheism. I could wish, however, that PZ could manage to find a similar level of toleration for my Catholicism, as further details will more than amply demonstrate.

Is that so, Senator?

The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Senator John McCain, speaking to around 1,500 people in New Jersey today, opined that yesterday's Supreme Court decision (PDF link) affirming the right of detainees in Guantanamo Bay to habeas corpus relief in the U.S. courts was one of the worst ever handed down:

The United States Supreme Court rendered a decision yesterday that I think is one of the worst decisions in history.

O rly? Worse even than, say, any of these greatest hits?

• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), in which the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote that black people were "...beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the Court, virtually unanimously (save for the brave dissent of Justice Harlan) upheld the constitutionality of segregation, giving us the infamous "separate but equal" doctrine that prevailed until the civil rights era of the 1960s.
• Buck v. Bell (1927), in which Oliver Wendell Holmes (of all people!) wrote for a virtually unanimous Court that compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped was constitutional, closing his argument with the infamous and iniquitous phrase, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
• Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld the internment of American citizens and lawful permanent residents of Japanese descent without ever proving they had committed any crime.
• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), in which an (arguably senile) Justice Byron White and a 5-4 majority upheld the right of the government to criminalize consenting sexual behavior in private between persons of the same gender.
• Bush v. Gore (2000), the infamous 7-2 per curiam decision that handed the presidential election to the Boy Who Won't Be King Much Longer, and began the eight-year nightmare which has been the Hedgemony. The justices were so embarrassed by their decision in that case that they refused to sign their names to it.

Somewhere, the Framers are smiling

I don't know who's responsible for it, but I would very much like to take him or her out for a drink--and then plant a big sloppy wet one right on his/her lips. The First Freedom First campaign, a joint effort of the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, has put together an amazing ad campaign of television and print media ads urging (largely presidential, but the principle applies up and down the electoral chain as far as I'm concerned) candidates to protect Americans' religious freedom--including their right to be free from religion in their day-to-day lives, and their right not to have their government co-opted by people of one particular (and particularly narrow) faith.

There are three spots at the YouTube link provided above. Two feature Jack Klugman, and one features James Whitmore. Whitmore's spot and one of Klugman's come in both 30-second and 60-second varieties. The ads will be running in South Carolina ahead of their primary election later this month.

It's things like this campaign that make me think this nation might be worth saving--and that there are still a few people left in it who want to make the effort. It's things like this campaign that let me know the internet is a positive force in society and isn't just a convenient vehicle for endless spam about breast or penis enlargement, casino gambling, every possible variety of pornography, and how to get rich quickly by buying a diploma from a "prestigious online university" or getting in touch with the confidential agent for a relative of some fabulously wealthy deceased dictator who needs a convenient place to launder some ill-gotten gains.

This is what the First Amendment means. It means that I cannot be prevented from practicing my religious faith as I feel called to do, and neither can I be forced to worship in any way that I consider to be invalid or improper. But neither can I insist that everyone else practice either my faith, or in exactly the same way I do. My atheist neighbor has the right not to worship at all. He can't force me to convert to his beliefs, and neither can I force him to convert to mine. That's the sheer beauty of the system the Framers put in place when they drew up the Constitution. It gives everyone living within the borders of this nation the freedom to make his or her own choices about what to believe in and how to live in accordance with those beliefs.

It is an outright lie, and worse, one intended to deceive people, that the United States was founded as a "Christian" nation. Want proof of that? It's right there in black and white in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed November 4, 1796, approved by President John Adams, and unanimously ratified by the Senate on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of that treaty, as translated from the Arabic original, reads:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The Christianists, and their dupes or masters (I'm not sure which term is most appropriate) in Congress behind the infamous H. Res. 888 [PDF link], would have us believe that this treaty is of little importance and that yes, indeed, Virginia, the United States was most definitely founded as a "Christian nation." The problem with that argument (if such a thin, paltry thread can legitimately be called by that name) begins with the fact that nowhere in any of our foundational documents is anything said about our allegedly Christian roots. There are only a handful of references to God in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and those that are present are vague, euphemistic, and almost certainly not intended to refer to the god worshiped by the Christianists. But the bigger problem for their line of rhetoric can be found in the second clause of Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

Oops.

And the Lord did grin...

A federal jury in Maryland has handed down an $11 million judgement against Fred Phelps and his rabid band of haters, after the father of one of the soldiers at whose funeral the Phelpsoi protested filed suit against them. The jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages, and an additional $2 million for emotional distress. The haters, of course, are planning to appeal--and they do have some grounds, it grieves me to have to say.

Before I go any further, let me be 100% crystal clear about a couple of things. First, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. I'm just an educated layman who's spent some time reading up on First Amendment issues and caselaw, who also happens to have a library degree and know a little something about research and the interpretation of texts.

Second, I am of the firm conviction that, in the unlikely event that God actually hates anything or anyone, it is far more likely to be Fred Phelps and his sick, twisted notions about God than it is anything else. Chances are pretty good, from where I sit, that if Fred Phelps is sure God's agin' it, God is probably for it. And while I'm doing my level best to be a man of peace, for Fred Phelps and his band of boobs it wouldn't take much to have me singing an Amen to the prayer famously expressed by Capt. Edmund Blackadder at the end of Episode 2 of Blackadder Goes Forth:

Henceforth, I shall nightly pray to the God who killed Cain and squashed Samson that He comes out of retirement and gets back into practice on the [lot of them].

What am I missing here?

Via Andy at Towleroad, I learn that the New York City fire commissioner has prohibited members of the fire department from posing for what the linked news story described as a "wildly popular" FDNY beefcake calendar, effectively killing it off for good after this year's is sold out. The reason? Brace yourself for a shock: because the cover model has a penis and in at least one instance in his younger days, wasn't terribly shy about showing it off.

Please, someone fetch me my smelling salts as I grope my way toward the fainting couch!

I have to say, I think this is one of the lamest ideas I've encountered thus far this year (and that's saying something), and one which makes even less sense than usual. Let's get a few important facts cleared up first. There is no actual nudity displayed in the calendar: just photos of shirtless firemen, some of whom are wearing at least some of their firefighting gear. Second, the purpose of the calendar is to raise money for the FDNY Fire Foundation, a private entity that raises funds for equipment and training that the fire department would otherwise not get if it had to rely solely on its government appropriations. So supporting the foundation, whose job it is to help support the department, would seem to make a certain amount of sense. Banning participation by the guys who directly benefit from the foundation's efforts, on the other hand, seems to me to be a lose-lose proposition.

ConLaw 101 for theocrats

The United States will celebrate its 231st birthday on Wednesday. I feel confident in predicting that there will be at least a few celebrations taking place on that day during the course of which at least one person will say something to the effect that "America is a Christian nation" or else that it should get back to being one, or that what we need in this country is a dose of that good ol' time religion.

What is almost always meant by those kinds of dog-whistle phrases is that America should start (or continue) to exclude from membership--whether in the corridors of power or even more fundamentally, within the body politic itself--"those" people. People who don't believe in God at all. The Jews (this one's so popular I have to number them: 1 2 3). The Muslims. Essentially, anybody who does not think, believe, and/or worship exactly as they do.

In order to peddle such errant nonsense, those who espouse it must keep their listeners (readers, whatever) in ignorance about many of the basic tenets underlying the structure of our government and the bedrock principles on which it is based. And really, to refute them, all that is necessary is to quote a few snippets from the Constitution and one very early treaty:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land... (Article VI, clause 2)

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Article VI, clause 3)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... (First Amendment)

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797, Article 11)

I really don't know how it could be stated any simpler than that. The government of the United States is constitutionally barred from enforcing any kind of religious preference for holding an office of public trust or honor. It is likewise barred from establishing any one particular state religion (and, under the applicable Supreme Court precedent, even from favoring religion generally over non-religion--see Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 [1971]) and from interfering in any citizen's free exercise of his or her religious beliefs.

The Constitution further establishes itself, the laws made pursuant to its terms, and treaties entered into by the United States as "...the supreme Law of the Land..." One such treaty, ratified less than a decade after the adoption of the Constitution, and by and with the consent of many of the men who wrote the former document, clearly states that our government was not founded in any sense on Christian religious principles. I should think that the foregoing constituted ironclad proof that this country is not now, was never at any time in the past, nor can ever be made at some future date to become, a "Christian" nation.

There do seem to be an awful lot of people, however, who disagree with me on that. Which is one reason I'm participating in the Blog Against Theocracy event. Follow me below the fold for a few more reasons, and for information on how you can participate.

I do not think that word means what you think it means, Mr. Chief Justice

So the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in two First Amendment cases. The first upheld the right of corporations and unions to subvert the political process through misleading so-called "issue ads" inside the windows set by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The second dealt with the case of a student who was disciplined for holding up a banner reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

Both decisions were disappointments, and both were 5-4 split decisions, with the two new conservative nominees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, tipping the scales in favor of a radical departure from the court's previous decisions in both lines. I would further argue, however, that the two decisions offer a perfect illustration of the intellectual bankruptcy of the neo-conservative movement.

The money quote from the McCain-Feingold case was cited by the New York Times and NPR that I know of. I'm sure others carried it as well. In his opinion, the chief justice wrote that "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

That's actually not a bad rule of law. When a fundamental civil right is in question, the courts in any just society ought to come down on the side of the right whenever possible.

The problem I have with those words in the mouth of the chief justice is that if he truly believed them, he would have to have voted the other way on Morse v. Frederick. There, too, the First Amendment was implicated. But in that case, the chief justice decided to award the decision to the censor, not to the speaker.

True, the cases are not exactly parallel. The appellee, Joseph Frederick, was still in high school when he unfurled his banner at a school-sponsored rally for the passage of the Olympic torch through his hometown in Alaska. He was, however, 18 years of age or nearly so at the time, and he was standing on a public sidewalk where a reasonable bystander would have been hard-pressed indeed to connect either the young man or his sign with his school. And, as even the chief justice admitted, the message on his sign was "cryptic."

All of those considerations lead me to believe that the Court should have followed its brand-new precedent in the McCain-Feingold case and awarded the former student the damages he sought following his suspension from school and the consequent loss of his father's job. The chief justice, however, demurred on the grounds that the school principal's construction of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as somehow being a pro-drug message was not per se unreasonable.

I suppose one might be able to reach such a conclusion. If one were a typically drug- and vice-obsessed conservative. Perhaps. Mr. Frederick's banner did not advocate for the legalization or the use of any drug. Indeed, one has to read into the phrase "bong hits" to arrive at any kind of a drug message at all. To go from there to advocacy, one would have to imply a verb that is not even present in the sign's message.

A far more plausible construction, it seems to me, is the one the author thereof himself wanted to put on it--a catchy, funny phrase that he thought would guarantee at least a brief appearance on the television coverage of the torch relay. The fact that he was for all intents and purposes a legal adult at the time, and that he made his banner and displayed it off of school grounds, should, by my lights, have excused him from the school's tutelage on the occasion. It would have been different had he tried to hang that banner above his locker on school grounds, but he did not do so. Given that there was virtually no way to associate the young man standing on a street corner holding a quirky banner with that particular school, I think it stretches credibility (to say nothing of the law) to suggest that the school should still have been able to exercise quasi-parental authority over him: especially since he broke no laws by doing what he did.

Yes, he was technically attending a school-sponsored function. But attendance at that function was not required, and no attempt was made either to take attendance or to regulate the students who chose to attend in any way. The courts have held that schools have some enhanced rights to restrict the free expression of their students when that expression poses a problem or creates a diversion from the educational mission of the school. But I have a hard time seeing how anyone could reasonably argue that the events of the instant case posed anything like such a disruption.

And so I am disappointed. It would appear, at least based on the jurisprudence handed down by the highest court in the land yesterday, that corporate persons who do not technically enjoy civil rights are now freer than actual persons who do enjoy such rights. And that's just plain wrong.