So....Darwin was a Nazi? ......

....... and a misogynist? ....... and a sinful atheist? You gotta love the chutzpah of Kirk Cameron and his buddy Ray Cofort. This is one of those times when the first thing that comes into my admittedly cynical mind is: "it's gotta be a send-up." Alas, I am as wrong with this assumption as I was with my first reactions to Rush Limbaugh, the 700 Club, Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling, the PTL Club, Gordon Liddy, and Saddleback Church. These people are either serious, or they are playing to people who are serious.

Look, there is no way I can do justice to the sheer idiocy of the latest plan of the "Save America from the evil devil-worship called science" crowd. PLEASE go to:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/09/24/kirk_cameron/index.html

Now read the article, watch the first video (where this Kirk Cameron person gives you nine factual errors ((that's what I'm supposed to call lies)) in the first 90 seconds), then play the second video, where a very funny lady from Romania rips into the various inaccuracies. And isn't it interesting that this person knows more about the Constitution and the various Supreme Count decisions regarding the interface between religion and government than this Kirk Cameron person (or whoever wrote this script)?

Since the Internet permits anyone to say anything, it makes up for the occasional misuse by allowing anybody else to comment, analyze, and satirically skewer the original presentation.

For that exercise, the reader would be well advised to go here:

http://www.salon.com/tech/giga_om/online_video/2009/09/27/weekend_vid_picks_kirk_cameron_vs_youtube/index.html

Just when you think it's safe to talk to strangers...

The other day, I got into one of those casual conversations one often strikes up with a stranger. Nothing earth-shaking; the weather, the school system, Ian's latest accomplishment, the accomplishments of their children/grandchildren, that sort of thing.

[DELIBERATE DIGRESSION: For those of you who are joining the congregation late, and have had neither a chance nor an interest (fully understandable) in looking at early posts, background, etc., Ian is my son, who is currently teaching English in Japan, was recently appointed Head Instructor for his colleagues in the Niigata Prefecture Elementary and Middle Schools, climbed Mt. Fuji this summer, is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, etc., etc., etc.)

Next thing I know, this person is assuming Ian went to private, highly conservative schools, and also making the assumption that, being retired from the U. S. Air Force, I'm a neo-con, homophobic, gun nut who wants the Southern Border reworked into something that makes the old Berlin Wall look like a picket fence. It's difficult to hold a conversation with someone with whom I can agree on very little.

Just for the record, my politics are reasonably liberal, based in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and (I will admit freely) contaminated by several hundred hours of study in the general field of Constitution Law and the way it relates to Education Law and Business Law.

I don't understand how you can hate a whole class of people because of a shared characteristic. There are a few individuals I try to forgive every Erev Yom Kippur ... unsuccessfully. There are a few people I intensely disliked at particular moments (getting shot at from a distance has that temporary effect). There are even a few people whose assumptions about the world get right up my nose. That last group tends to arouse the need to teach, rather than the desire to hate. It's the cliche about teaching the pig to dance, but it is difficult to resist.

Just as I believe that G-d does not make junk, I believe that a large percentage of the population can change their minds when presented with new information. Evidence to the contrary, I do not believe the mind is so tightly locked that information can't enter.

I served 26 years in the U.S. Air Force, and for four of those years, I was seconded to NATO. As an unintended side affect, I wound up rating Expert with a dozen of so firearms. I was shot at a couple of times, and that's all the information relevant to this paragraph. I do not own a sidearm, nor a rifle, nor so much as a high-velocity pellet gun. I agree with the position the NRA had when I was a kid (and a member): guns should be registered and gun owners should be licensed and trained. Unfortunately, the Association changed course (fascinating what money can do), and I didn't.

Not for nothing, in those places where firearms can be kept in Base Quarters, the percentage of homes with one or more guns is typically half or less that of the surrounding civilian population.

A Possible Agendum for Change

Watching the self-destruction of the Republican Party has been an exercise in nostalgia for those of us who were in the UK during the implosion of the Thatcher government.

Place yourselves upon a pedestal, that you might instruct the lesser elements in the way they should conduct themselves, and it is in the nature of things that your own faults (and those of your colleagues) will be found out. Moreover, your faults will seem greater in the light of your self-constructed illumination, and all the people you accused of being morally inferior will take great delight at your downfall.

It's the familiar theme of Hubris. While it is sometimes simplified to "overweening pride" or "total lack of humility" or even "daring to defy God (or The Fates)", or something of that sort, there is a far deeper element.

Hubris wasn't/isn't a simple dramatic convention, it was a crime. The Ancient and Classical Greek legal system defined hubris as shaming someone for your own gratification. Everything from rape to mocking one's political opponent to writing nasty poetry about someone to being brutal to a slave or a metic counted. An action based on hubris drew the sharpest punishment because was rooted in the despicable belief held by some that by treating others badly they demonstrate their own superiority. Sound familiar to those of you who think Hate Speech is something new?

And the hubris that inspires people to scream "You Lie!" at the President of the United States? The hubris that leads a second rate broadcast pundit to smear the names of people who actually graduated from college? The hubris that inspires people to accuse a Doctor who has been acknowledged as a leading light in the fight against the "Right to Die" people of devising "death panels" to decide which Senior Citizens will be eliminated? The hubris to disregard all evidence and claim the President of the United States is somehow not qualified for the office?

We can, of course, hope that the Ancient and Classical Greeks were right, and the unjust harm they intend rebounds upon them in multiplied strength. But that makes us no better than the "Pastor" who brags about praying daily for the painful death of the President of the United States.

But be of good cheer, citizens. All of this negative rabble-rousing may, after all, have a positive result.

No, not the possibility that Texas, Mississippi, Arizona, Alaska, and North Dakota will talk themselves into such a rhetorical corner that they will have to put secession on the ballot and (at a minimum) live for years with the knowledge they are mocked by the rest of the Republic when the Initiatives fail. Not even the slim, yet delightful chance that one or more secessionist movements will manage the job, and we will have a place for all those people who keep screaming "this is not my country any more!!" to relocate.

No, the great possibility lies in this:

The great big evil thing hiding in the political closet has been the circumstance where a third party becomes a viable option. There are, after all, Republicans who would rather watch "Jeopardy" than consider joining the Democrats, yet do NOT want to be grouped with the kind of people who get bused in to "Town Halls" and "Tea Parties" in order to wave signs with the kind of slogans that would repulse Father Coughlin, or Westbrook Pegler, or Joe McCarthy, or even some of the more ardent members of the John Birch Society.

[Minor Pedantic Digression]To those of you who don't recognize those references, I'm going to let you go look them up on your own. Not that I wouldn't love leading a seminar on the relatively recent ancestors of the current neo-con movement, but I quit writing books some time back, and it would take about that many pages to do justice to the terrible practices and effect of that particular rogues gallery.

There are even a fair number of Ultra-Left true believers who wanted the current Administration to retain the unconstitutional power structure of the former Administration in order to do good things. The problem is, they have run up against a President who insists that the powers, limitations, and roles defined in The Constitution of The United States be restored.

Sounds like a great coalition to build a Third, or even a Fourth Party!!!!! Sound the trumpets, flourish the hautboys, and let the offstage be filled with diverse alarums and diversions!!!!!

At last, the Electoral College will get back to the purpose for which it was established!

This could be a lot of fun.

Steven L. Anderson is a lucky man

As the Obama administration continues on its path to walk government back into compliance with the Constitution, some level of resistance is only to be expected. Equally inevitable, it would seem, are situations where thoroughly despicable people manage to get away scot free.

Such a person is Steven L. Anderson, a self-proclaimed pastor currently associated with the Faithful Word Baptist Church, which describes itself as: "an old-fashioned, independent, fundamental, King James Bible only, separated Baptist church and not ashamed to say so."

The Church's Doctrinal Statement (written by Pastor Anderson) includes opposition to: "worldliness, modernism, formalism, and liberalism,” and features the declaration "We believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination which God punishes with the death penalty."

In the church's website, Pastor Anderson proudly states he does not have any grounding in theology or Biblical scholarship.

"Pastor Anderson holds no college degree but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory, including almost half of the New Testament."

His Vocation is described thusly:

Originally from Sacramento, CA, Brother Anderson was a member of Regency Baptist Church. On November 12, 2005, Brother Anderson sought counsel from his pastor, Stephen Nichols, about starting a church in Phoenix, AZ. They discussed and prayed about it and decided that Brother Anderson would move to Phoenix immediately to start the church. The next day, on November 13, 2005, Pastor Nichols called him up on the platform of Regency Baptist Church in the Sunday morning service and had the church pray for Brother Anderson as he would be going out to start this new church. Faithful Word Baptist Church began 6 weeks later as an independent, autonomous Baptist church.

So here we have a person who takes great pride in a memorization accomplishment (which he credits, in large part, to a diet that relies heavily on bananas, avocados, and nuts) that would be considered "meets standards" by any second year student in virtually any Seminary, Bible College, Yeshiva, or Center for Islamic Studies in any university.

[Digression] While I write this, it occurs to me that my paternal grandmother (a Seventh-Day Adventist) probably passed the hundred chapter mark when she was a very young lady. So she could have decided she was a Pastor and started her own church? I make this suggestion only in the faith that her sense of humor is the only reason I have yet to be hit with a lightening bolt.

So Pastor Anderson preaches (and publishes) sermons calling for the death of the entire GLBT community, sermons "demonstrating" why In-Vitro Fertilization is an abomination unto the Most High, and sermons calling upon G-d to smite an impressive list of people. In his off time, he likes to drive up to Border Patrol checkpoints with the windows of his vehicle rolled up, refuse to produce his driver's license (or any other documentation), refuse to allow a search of his vehicle, and generally shout about how he has a right, as a Free American, to pass through such places unhindered.

Pastor Anderson is currently suing the U.S. Border Patrol and the Arizona Department of Public Safety over an incident in April of this year where a drug dog alerted on his car while he was going through his "you can't get to me" anthem. Following 40 minutes of standoff, the law enforcement officers, following procedure, broke the windows of the vehicle, pulled him out, overcame his attempts to escape, and handcuffed him. He claims he was repeatedly tasered, thoroughly beaten, and otherwise brutalized in a manner that should have been reserved for gays and illegal aliens. The case doesn't have a lot of hope. Legality of checkpoints and the obligation to co-operate was a settled thing in 1978. But he has a chance to rant on a YouTube video that is getting tens of thousands of hits per day.

There is also a YouTube video of what has become Pastor Anderson's most popular sermon "Why I Hate Obama." You can hear this supposed man of faith pray for the death of the President in a number of ways. When a parishoner named Chris Broughton brought an assault rifle and a handgun to an event where President Obama was in attendance, he had come from hearing that sermon. Yes, Pastor Anderson is a lucky man.

Before I discuss why Pastor Anderson is a lucky man, consider this: in 2004, a pastor who told his flock "before you vote, search your consciences," was questioned by the Secret Service, investigated by the IRS, and found his church's tax-free status suspended. When a Catholic Priest (again in 2004) told his parishoners that he could not discuss the election in church because he was not able to be objective and did not want to cross the line between church and state, a member of his parish called the local Homeland Security Agency office, and the priest was questioned about his "unpatriotic" remark. Dozens of clergymen, in fact, were questioned, and had their finances audited, during that election, for nothing more than not giving the incumbent President their endorsement.

But the Imperial Presidency that has occupied 20 of the past 30 years in this land is no more. We now have a President who is trying to return government to the rules set down in the Constitution. So, even though Pastor Anderson clearly called for the murder of the President of the United States, and, in other sermons, called for the overthrow of the government by force and violence, in clear violation of 18 USC § 871, "Threats against the President" he is still at large.

Less than two years after the Conservative Movement (as they like to be called) sorted through over two thousand hours of sermons by Reverend Wright to get 26 minutes of what could be presented as "hate speech" we now have a nation where a clergyman whose sermons are, by the standards laid down by the SCOTUS in United States v. Phillips, 42 MJ 127 (1995), Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 47 (1975) and Ragansky v. United States, 253 F. 643, 645 (7th Cir. 1918),et al., the Government is choosing to lean toward a broader interpretation of the First Amendment. To see how thin a line Pastor Anderson is deliberately treading, and to see just how much latitude the Administration is giving to dissent, I would direct you to US v. Ogren (US Appellate Court for the Armed Forces).

There is, indeed, a new spirit abroad in the land, but it is the essence of that spirit of tolerance that the voices of violence and hatred are allowed to flourish. In the beginning, we are told, was Hashem: the Word. But how long did that word exist unopposed? That, Mammash, is for another time. What we can do now, perhaps all we can do if we want to avoid dropping into that mire where the hatemongers dwell, is to practice patience, and do what we can to allow the rhetoric of hate to burn itself out, feeding on itself. There are signs of that day coming. Despite millions of dollars being spent on ersatz "grassroots" demonstrations, and vitriol getting more air time than veracity, there are fewer people listening each week. As trends go, that's encouraging.

Somebody call the NRA

Another threat to freedoms!

What's next? A national requirement that you have to meet the same basic requirements to own and operate a gun that you must meet to own and operate a car? Or a bicycle? Or a Segway? The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!!

Associated Press (copyrighted, excerpted under Fair Use guidelines)

NEW YORK -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to make it illegal in New York City to possess a firearm while drunk.

The mayor is proposing a local law that would impose a one-year jail sentence and fine of up to $10,000 for offenders.

The law would use the same definition of intoxicated as the legal limit for driving.

Many states, including South Dakota and Missouri, have laws similar to what Bloomberg is proposing for the city.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed.

Seriously, just wait for the gun lobby to start screaming. They've managed to hang up a similar bill in the New York State Assembly with everything from bused-in "spontaneous demonstrations" to millions in TV ads
to Republican Assembly Members citing everything from the Minutemen to John Wayne to the Wyatt Earp.

Just for the record, the various militia groups in New England (including the one that, in 1774, flogged the British Imposed Magistrates in the Mass. colony back to Boston, and stole the cannons, muskets, and ammunition from British supply depots that Regulars were later sent to "rescue" from Lexington) had very strict regulations about not showing up to muster "having indulged excessively in Strong Drink" or otherwise not ready to perform their assigned duties. Fines and floggings were the usual punishments. George Washington had several sentries hanged for being drunk on duty.

John Wayne may have had a drinking problem (and a HUGE domestic violence problem), but he rarely showed up for work over the limit, and did a PSA in the 70's on gun safety where he stressed the message of not shooting or hunting while intoxicated.

Wyatt Earp? get past the TV and the myths spread by Ned Buntline and look at the history.

We put restrictions on driving a vehicle because, sometimes with serious effort, a drunk driver/rider can do damage to people and property. Why is it so difficult to consider it just as important to try and limit the number of times some drunk starts firing in a crowded place for whatever reason bubbles through his/her alcohol-sodden brain?