What constitution are you reading?

Ok, now Michael Newdow is being an idiot:

Atheist Michael Newdow has filed a federal lawsuit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's upcoming inauguration....The Inaugural '05 Web site says "A minister chosen by the President will deliver an invocation" before Bush takes the oath of office at the end of January. Newdow says that's unconstitutional and is seeking an expedited hearing of his case.

For those who don't remember, his first case got tossed on a technicality -- he couldn't legally sue on behalf of his daughter because she wasn't in his custody, but his point was solid. This one...no.

Let's look at that establishment clause of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Applied to the previous case: congress -- despite not having the authority to do so -- intervenes in education, passing legislation on what they do, therefore by extension the mention of "under god" in the pledge in a government school violates it; if you want "god" in, then the federal government must get out, period.

Applied to this new complaint: First of all, it says nothing about the inauguration ceremony, at all. Second, it's been a long-accepted feature of our government that religious expressions for the use of our representatives themselves are accepted -- nobody cares if congressmen pray before they start their day, for example. Also, there is no indication that this is being forced on anyone, I'm sure that if between now & Inauguration day Bush were to hypothetically convert to Islam he could invite an Imam or something, and even be sworn in on a Koran. It's his choice, and he happens to be a christian, so where's the conflict?

He's making us look bad.

Frivilous wastes of time department...or for newbies too lazy to sift through archives...

There's "tests" on the internet that attempt to classify where you're at politically. If you're new here and don't feel like figuring out for yourself, or you're not new here and are just as bored as I am, here are my results on a couple:

-According to PoliticalCompass.org, on a 20x20 grid going -10 to +10, I'm +4.4 to the Right (read: very-solid-yet-realistic fiscal conservative) and -3.8 "south" between trusting Authority or Individuals (solid civil libertarian, w/ some cultural gripes).

-According to OnTheIssues.org, I oppose 70% of political say in personal lives & 80% of political say in our economic lives, making me a "conservative-leaning libertarian".

The average person just glancing at my raw policy views would say "libertarian", but I've come to believe that the thinking such a pronouncement comes from neglects the importance of how people approach the culture they're within -- is it "libertarian" to believe that people don't beat their kids enough anymore? Or that the problem with mainstream media is not stereotyping or oversexualization but an overt willingness to prop up civil trends for ratings that deserve to be dragged out and shot? Or that compared to old-school screw-them-all imperialism the current Benevolent form is worse? The way we use those labels now may tell vaguely how we would vote in some sterile dream-world where everything began and ended with legislation, but isn't the entire point of our professed way of life to forge a nation where what really matters is what you say with your feet or your wallet, and not what you pull some lever for?

So this turned out to be more than I thought it would. As usual...

Enough already...

WASHINGTON - Congress certified President George W. Bush's re-election yesterday, but only after Democrats forced a challenge to the quadrennial count of electoral votes for just the second time since 1877.

Bush's Election Day triumph over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was never in doubt. After a near four-hour delay to consider and reject a dispute over voting in Ohio, lawmakers in joint session affirmed Bush's 286-251 electoral vote victory....

Ok, Kerry himself didn't even support this idiotic show of sour grapes, so just what was the point? They claim it was to "highlight" problems...

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) formally protested that the Ohio votes "were not, under all known circumstances, regularly given." That, by law, required the House and Senate to convene separately and debate the Ohio irregularities.

Anyone too politically insecure to withstand blunt-force truth, avert your eyes right now:

Were there irregularities? Yes, but it's time to cut the crap here. There always will be irregularities in voting, it is an inherent feature of any system that has votes at all, nothing that is done to address them will change that. Cheating was done on all sides, and it tends to cancel each other out. Anyone asserting otherwise must be either a) deliberately stirring the pot for partisan gain or b) naive perfectionists who actually believe the "shining example" garbage we feed to the rest of the world. Either way, they aren't particularly deserving of attention.

As Americans some of us tend to buy our own hype. Hear enough rah-rah lines and you begin to believe that your country really is perfect -- "our politicians don't cheat, we don't screw up ballots, we're America and we're SPECIAL!". Things like the butterfly ballot situation in Florida back in 2000 & the alleged "issues" with Ohio this go-round rock the fragile minds of those who've bought into this image, and pseudo-populist types like to use this mental state to draw attention via hyperbole. Some voting booths breaking down does not in any way mean we've suddenly jumped from actually being the Disneyland Democracy that we tell our children about to morph into some Stalinist gulag-state: we are somewhere in the middle. Any election system inherently will break down in some spots, that is the price of voting and it is unavoidable with humans involved. That this is being portrayed as no different than when roving bands of Klansmen used to hang people that looked like me for voting at all is ridiculous.

Personally I think this may be indicative of a larger problem: we are ceasing to differentiate between patriotism & willful blindness. People think that we're flawless, causing them to veer into a logical BrickWall at the slightest glimpse of reality. Simply because you are glad to be here does not in any way mean that you must see it as perfect; expecting perfect only leads to dissappointment. I'm glad to have been born & raised in the US and would have it no other way, but I am not naive enough to think for even a second that my country is not in some way screwy if the evidence arises, thus I am not willing to engage in exaggeration of a molehill into Mount Everest because of it.

I remember when the idiotic trend of "picture phones" came up. Everyone's cell phones started having little color screens for whatever reason. Thought to myself, "why do they even bother? What could possibly be the point to this?"

Here be the point (requires login)

Yes folks, it's just another way to sell nekked pictures. Sometimes I swear life is too simple...