The ten commandments of the Fray. 

Thou Shall Take Lots of Cream With Your Coffee (DrPedantic, "A Word From the Religious Left"):  

As both an Evangelical Christian and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I have to commend Ms. Lithwick by hitting on a point I raise all the time. Watering down God and religion so that they become nothing more than "symbols" is nothing less than blasphemy.

When Posting, Thou Shall Cite Frankish Law Whenever Possible (Thrasymachus, "Moore's a Disgrace to the Bar"): 

U.S. law has many foundations, and … "Judeo-Christian law" isn't one of them, because it doesn't exist. American law, as Moore should have learned when he was in law school, has several major sources. A few of the leading ones are:

1) Babylonian Law
2) Hebraic (note: that's not "Judeo-Christian") Law
3) Greek philosophy
4) Roman Law
5) Frankish Law; and most importantly of all-
6) English Common Law.

If judge Moore really wanted to showcase the foundations of American law, where's his statue of Zeus?

Thou Shall Smite Slate Correspondents for Their Ahistorical Renderings (1-2-Oscar, "Dhalia Lithwick doesn't know her history"):

First, we should note that the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law...." The first ten amendments to the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, were intended to limit the power of the federal government, and did not limit the powers of the several states in any way…

Second, Ms. Lithwick is apparently not aware that every one of the original thirteen states had an "official" church at the time that the Constitution and its first ten amendments were written and ratified.

Thou Shall Be Squirrely and Think Outside the Bible Box (Appleblade, "Roy Moore's Argument"):

In rushing to condemn Roy Moore's annoying position the media, reporters and analysts alike, have failed to notice the cleverness of his argument. While I don't think he's right to keep the Ten Commandments lodged in the floor of the courthouse, I do think he's on solid ground with his defense of one claim and his defiance of the order from the other chief justices.

First, his one claim that's adequately defended is that the constitution prohibits the establishment of religion, but not the acknowledgement of God. His evidence? God is acknowledged in all sorts of government traditions and documents.

Thou Shalt Not Overlook the Temerity of Elected Officers of the Court (celticdog, "Y'all Are Funny …":

Roy Moore is achieving exactly what he wants, he's getting publicity. He obviously aspires to some higher political office, such as governor or senator. Judges? Political? How can that be? Well in Alabama the Supreme Court Justices are elected. And what about those Federal Judges? Why they're political apponitments. Not appointed based upon their legal acumen, but upon their political connections.

As for Moore, he is appealing to Christian conservatives with his righteous stand. Oh, and making his name a household word for the next election. See, you can use religion to achieve many goals........such as running a political campaign for free.

Thou Shalt Not Romanticize nor Idealize the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (Zathras, "God and the Founders"):

Well, we live in a different country now than our forefathers did. We aim to be open and welcoming to all beliefs, or unbeliefs, hostile toward none, which is what the Founders intended. Isn't it?

Actually, they probably never imagined it. There is not the slightest historical evidence that the Founders ever assumed that the United States would at some point not be a predominantly Christian -- indeed, predominantly Protestant Christian -- country. The prohibition against establishing a church (which Connecticut and Massachusetts ignored well into the 1800s) or legislating upon the exercise of religion was intended to keep Congress from giving an advantage to any of the Protestant denominations (or, in Maryland only, the Catholic Church) over any of the others. If there had been any appreciable number of Muslims or Hindus in late 18th Century America they would most likely have been directed to leave by the governments of that time -- and in fact, the "free exercise" of Native American religions was recognized in precisely that way.

Thou Shall Be Pithy, Even When Discussing Metaphyiscal Issues (chloeqpc, "Lithwick column"):

The thing that makes these questions of religion so difficult to navigate is the fact that religious belief is for the most part absolute, intolerant, and non-negotiable. For a Christian, the question of Christ's divinity is not up for debate. Similar issues can be found in other major religions.

How then can a system that values - even requires - tolerance and diversity accommodate behaviors which are the direct opposite? The answer is that it can't.

Thou Shall Invoke One's Faith to Revive Dead Horses with Fresh Insight (SensibleChristian, "a question of purpose"):

If one believes in the 10 Commandments, as I do, he/she probably has them memorized (as I do). Why must they be posted in government venues, unless the majority is trying to intimidate non-believers into thinking that particular belief system, and none other, is "approved" by the United States court system. I wear a crucifix around my neck and pray wherever the heck I please. If anyone tried to stop either _private_ practice, I'd be up in arms over my Constitutional rights. But public displays are not religion, they are politics. And they are intimidating, bullying tactics that should not be catered to by our laws. Period. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "your rights end where my nose begins." Someone a lot more important said, "Be not like the hypocrites who pray on street corners, but retire to your chamber .. . " Look it up. It's in the Bible. The speaker was Jesus Christ.

Thou Shall One-up Thrasymachus with a Reference to Simon de Montfort (Mike_Murray, "Absence is in no sense neutral"):

Would anyone object to a statue of Simon de Montfort, Hamurabi, Marcus Aurelius, or Justice (blindfolded with scales) in a courthouse? The answer is undoubtedly no. In particular you do see Classical statues to Justice etc in courthouses. So a non religious object with reference to justice or the rule of law is fine. Does the Ten Commandments have a reference to justice or the rule of law? I think only the most fanatic would argue that Judaic law did not have an effect on the history of law and certainly the Ten Commandments are the most recognizable representation of that history. So, any item which has a religious connotation of any sort must because of that connotation be banished from public display regardless of how much otherwise it might be appropriate to the circumstance …In terms of freedom of religion this seems to me not only inconsistent but antithetical. But does this mean religious display of any sort is appropriate? … The Ten Commandments undoubtedly is representative of more than just Judaism or Christianity or Islam. It is representative of early attempts at codifying law and establishing the rule of law.

Thou Shall Pick Apart the Opponent's Argument, Hanging Relevant Links like They're Christmas Lights (Joe_JP, "Roy Moore, Defender of the Faith and 10A"):

[Moore] is seen as a hero of states rights. Another current hero (and past supporter of Moore) is Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, controversial nominee to the federal court bench. What does he think about the federal order to remove the statute and the fine to the state if it is not removed? Well, he surely opposes the decision, but not the power to inflict it. He said as much in a recent letter to the minority in the state legislature that discusses the case.

First off, "The State of Alabama is not a party to either of the cases against Chief Justice Moore and has neither waived its immunity nor consented to suit." At any rate, per a 1908 USSC decision, a state official can be ordered by the federal courts to act, though the state itself can not. Finally:

"The power of the States under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution does not include the power of state officials to violate other provisions of the United States Constitution and federal law. Compliance by state officials with a valid federal court order would involve no abdication of any power whatsoever."

Who determines if it is "valid?" Each individual state judge? Not in the eyes of CJ Moore's colleagues, who per Alabama law has the power to overrule him on such matters. They are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it." What is the alternative? Each state judge can decide on their own what the federal law means?

À la Mel Brooks, FrEd dropped the other five in the  Los Feliz Costco parking lot yesterday and couldn't find a decent stonemason to save his life. Additional Fray commandments can be submitted to Fraywatch Fray for consideration … KA9:20 a.m.

Wednesday, August 20, 2003

Battle Harrumph of the Republic: A recommendation from the gallery came across Fray Edtior's desk to toy with a new Fraywatch format, "to feature one post at a time (with addenda depending on the circumstances). Think of it as a game of king of the hill, the top post gets top billing until something better comes along and knocks them off."

Very well. 

TheQuietMan express incredulity here that a measured and studied Frayster such as Geoff could "hate" George W. Bush and characterize the president as "evil." 

In response, Geoff authors this treatise, "Why I Hate George W. Bush":

Alright, you asked for it. I'll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.

Why would I say that I "hate" George W. Bush? Isn't that a little strong? Isn't he just your average politician? Isn't this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views?

No, not really.

Before I get to George W. Bush, I need to explain what I think about politicians in general. For the moment, let us stipulate that politicians come in three general flavors:

The first category of politicians I believe to be genuinely honest and noble men committed to the ideal of public service. These are politicians who genuinely care, and strive to improve the Republic they cherish and the lives of its citizens. I believe these politicians to have principles, but I think they also understand reality rather well. They will master the art of compromise in the interests of accomplishment, and they may very well change their minds and their positions as they age or new events and concerns arise. But in the end, they keep one eye on what they sincerely believe to be RIGHT and another eye out for the pitfalls and road signs along the way…

The next category is where I place the demagogic ideologues. These are individuals who seem to enter politics through the motivation of zealotry rather than for personal gain. They're motives are similar to those of the noble politicians, but they're inability to adapt or to bend within the political process makes them dangerous to our Republic. For them, politics is about specific ends, and the means will always be adapted as needed to attain them….

Then, bottom on the totem pole of politicians, I would lump the remainder… the unscrupulous cynics who gravitate to the profession for the love of power. Often, we learn the truth about these politicians in their trials, as with Senator Toricelli or with Richard M. Nixon. Dan Rostenkowski or Gray Davis. And one, one of these scumbags prances before the public eye, nakedly self-aggrandizing… contemptuous of America, contemptuous of Americans, contemptuous of his detractors, contemptuous of his supporters… and nobody seems to notice. And that one, I call him George W. Bush.

I can find very little in the life of George W. Bush to admire or to respect. I can't fault him for having the fortune to be born into a family of wealth, power and privilege. However, all the evidence shows that he never felt any special responsibility came attached to the gifts he received from birth. And I'm not even talking about the responsibility to be some kind of philanthropist or minister to the poor. I'm talking about the responsibility to demonstrate that he was entitled to all that he had by effort as well as by blood. With a special dispensation he was allowed into a top East Coast prep school where he slacked off and took the special efforts exerted on his behalf for granted. Given an unearned shot at an institution allegedly based on merit, he squandered and disdained the opportunity. Then, with mediocre grades he went to Yale on the strength of connections alone, maintaining a C average, far below the standard those who have attained such an opportunity through effort hold themselves to. Somehow, he still managed to fail his way upward into the Harvard MBA program, where again, there is no evidence that he applied himself with any particular diligence. Again and again, through Bush's life, he was handed opportunity that people strive ceaselessly for. Without any effort, he received chances that people work themselves to the bone to never get a shot at. And at each stage, he wasted it, unmindful and seemingly uncaring of the extraordinary exceptions that had been made on his behalf.

Between his stint at Yale and the one at Harvard, Bush "served" in the military. I don't see any particular disgrace in dodging the draft. Many have done it, and many who haven't would have. My own father joined the Marine Corps when his student deferment expired on the sensible theory that it was the branch least likely to send him abroad. Bill Clinton joined the Rhodes Scholar program. Dan Quayle joined the Indiana National Guard. But my father SERVED his term as a Marine. Bill Clinton WENT to Oxford. Dan Quayle PUT IN HIS TIME in the Indiana National Guard. Does it bother me that George W. Bush disappeared from active duty in the Texas Air National Guard? Ceased taking the physical after the institution of a drug-testing policy in 1972? Yes. It really does bother me. And it should bother you too. Because once again, it points straight to the issue of contempt. Contempt for America, for the obligations of citizenship. Our system is set up to grant allowances. But if an allowance is made for you, you should at least feel obligated to HONOR THE TERMS of your dispensation. And George W. Bush demonstrated no such sense of duty. No such sense of honor…

I find nothing especially worthy of censure in his business career. It does little to enhance my opinion of him, as it demonstrates mostly a capacity to continue reaping, as an adult, the benefits of his more noble father's efforts … At the age of 40, we are led to believe that he found some new inner-strength. It's hard not to look at contempt with a man who can honestly profess that he did not reach adulthood until his 40's. But in such matters, late is always better than never…

Being a shallow and opportunistic politician isn't an inherently damnable offense, though I would certainly argue he is one. Our country would have been better off had a more noble character been poised to reap the rewards of the Supreme Court's unfortunate choice in 2000, but I cannot fault him too much for his failures of leadership in that moment. His embrace of steel tariffs and agricultural policy more reactionary than those supported by Dick Gephardt doesn't automatically disqualify him from the ranks of men entitled to some mercy.

In the end, it comes down to the simple issue of character.

People love to fulminate about character. My standards are not those of everyone. I don't really hold any feelings against those prone to sins of the appetite, as Bill Clinton was. I have trouble holding poor judgment against those who demonstrate it. All I ask is some evidence of a fundamental respect for the dignity of people. And I don't think George W. Bush has that respect…

There are those who believe that all politicians lie, and that Bush's are nothing exceptional. I don't know how to rebut such a charge, other than to state firmly and forcefully that I disagree. Watching Bush tell the nation with a straight face that they will receive an "average" tax cut of $1000 when he knows what the average person will actually receive is one of those little acts of disrespect. Sneeringly dismissing the protests of hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions worldwide at his instigation of a war abroad as mere "focus groups" is a telling indicator of the disrespect which created the frustration that propelled them to the streets in the first place (may I remind you, that neither his father nor his immediate predecessor faced anything on a comparable scale). Putting out word that he believed Air Force One to be the target of a terrorist attack to account for his shameful disappearance on September 11th of 2001… that's a kind of falsehood which makes my stomach start to churn in disgust. Untruths and misrepresentations abound in this President's public discourse, when he even bothers to show himself in public. More than usual, even for a politician. And, frankly, more than should be acceptable in the America I thought I knew…

There aren't words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation's television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… "let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." The barely-suppressed, no not really suppressed at all, look of GLEE at the thought of the death America has inflicted upon its enemies. I recognize that it is necessary to kill human beings. I recognize that our security demands it. That every president must hold the lives and deaths of strangers in his hands. But the fact that we MUST kill NEVER excuses taking delight THAT we kill. You probably don't believe me. I don't know if you believe Tucker Carlson when he describes Bush's mockery of Karla Faye Tucker: "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." Maybe some of you don't believe it. Worse, maybe some of you feel the same way, and consider Bush's response… virtuous? I don't know. I look at Bush, taunting the camera, daring America's enemies to "bring it on" and I see a sick and disgusting man – the worst face of America sneering in the spotlight. A man who doesn't bother to care about the enormity of his job, the enormity of its consequences, and the enormity of this glorious Republic we've brought forth.

When I look at George W. Bush, I don't see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the "whacko fringe." …

Editor's Note: FrEd, in an effort to alliterate yesterday's Fraywatch TOC headline, mistakenly referred to the purveyors of Heineken beer as "Flemish." Well, the good people of Flanders and those who love them have set me straight. Heineken is an exclusively Dutch operation and, accordingly, FrEd's headline should've read "Double Dutch Bust." … KA5:40 p.m.

Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Little Dutch Ploy: Are the Flemish phlegmatic about beer babes? That's what Rob Walker poses in Ad Report Card ("Does Heineken Hate Beer Babes?"). Exhibit A and Exhibit B in Heineken USA's new TV spot are dueling rooftop parties—one a staged male masturbatory fantasy, the other an organic, animated college catalog cover. Despite Heineken's attempt to forge its identity with the latter, Thrasymachus testifies that

They're both such common stereotypes, it's like ad-culture's left brain arguing with its right.

T tells us what truly happens on "real NYC rooftops" here. Nhoj, though, takes the brewers, and similarly post-romp sportswear purveyors Champion, at their word here. According to andkathleeen here, the Heineken and Champion ads

make the viewer feel slightly smug that THEY are smart enough not to fall for the other guy's ads ... not realizing, of course, that they're being sucked in (through their self-congratulation) to admiring a product for ... the advertising campaign. Pander to people's intellectual pretensions and you'll always hit paydirt.

And eLocke points out that "[t]hey also manage to have the scantily clad beer babes in there ad while at the same time mocking the concept of having scantily clad beer babes in their ads."

What's worse? An on-the-nose assault the gonads or the deceptive appeal to the bean?  Weigh in at Ad Report Card Fray.