Thursday, December 7, 2017
More Moore
“Lechery? You betchery.”
Anonymous
Our thanks go out to Roy Moore. As a result of his pedophiliactivities his friends are educating us in acceptable explanations for why such activity should not be a bar to professional advancement. One of our teachers is Jim Ziegler, the treasurer of the state of Alabama, and the other is the Presidential imposter who lives in the White House. Each offers a different defense, but both are persuasive.
The first defense is known as the “Joe and Mary Defense.” The second is known as the “Political Party Defense” (PPD). The Joe and Mary defense appeals to those having a religious bent, and the PPD appeals to Republicans of all stripes.
The Joe and Mary defense comes from Mr. Ziegler. Addressing Roy’s alleged acts of pedophilia, Mr. Ziegler presented Roy’s critics with some historical facts that had (a) been overlooked by many of Roy’s detractors, (b) put pedophilia in a whole new light, and© gave it an aura of respectability that was lacking before Mr. Zeigler sprang to its (and Roy’s) defense. Mr. Ziegler pointed out that Zechariah, John the Baptist’s dad, was “extremely old to marry Elizabeth [John’s mother]”. Although we are not given the ages of either of the parties to that particular marriage, if Mr. Ziegler is using them as justification for Roy’s pedophilia, we can be sure that the age difference was sufficiently great that had it not been a marriage, it would have been pedophilia. Of course, Zechariah was not the most persuasive case of approved pedophilia. That was left to Mr. Ziegler’s “Joe and Mary Defense.” Explaining that defense, he said: “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.” (Mr. Zeigler doesn’t mention the fact that this was a virgin birth but he’s probably assuming that after the birth took place, Joseph and Mary had sex just like any other married couple, thus making Joseph a Moore-like pedophile who simply waited to assume the role until the baby was born.) Given Roy’s zealous religiosity, it would not be surprising to learn that it is only modesty that has caused him to refrain from observing that in his conduct he is merely following in the footsteps of the parents of his beloved Lord who has guided him throughout his life.
The other person who has come to Roy’s defense is the presidential imposter who lives in the White House, a man who is himself a sexual predator who has been captured on tape bragging about his lecherous behavior. He has created an effective defense if the person being defended belongs to the correct political party. In the case of Roy Moore, even if all the allegations that have been made against him are true, they should not, in the imposter’s opinion, stand in the way of Roy’s achieving other great things (besides getting away with assaulting teen age girls which is in itself something of an achievement as the imposter would be the first to acknowledge since it didn’t keep him from getting the keys to the White House.) That defense is known as Political Party Defense (PPD) and its availability depends on the political affiliation of the accused pedophile and to what the pedophile aspires. Here is how the defense works.
Even if Moore is a pedophile, his aspiration is to join the United States Senate and his opponent is a Democrat. The imposter in the White House has asserted the PPD defense in defense of Roy. As he explained in a tweet speaking of Doug Jones, Roy’s opponent: “[W]e do not need somebody who’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad for the military, bad for the Second Amendment.” Unspoken but implicit, was that the United States Senate is not sullied by having a member who was bad for young girls. The imposter has now been joined in support of having a pedophiliac join what has been called “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” by the Republican National Committee and the courageous Mitch McConnell the majority leader of the Senate.
For those contemplating the sorts of activities in which Mr. Moore has allegedly engaged, they should not do so in expectation that the presidential imposter in the White House will come to their defense by means of PPD. The White House imposter would be the first to tell you that PPD is only available when the choice is between putting a pedophile in a position of power or putting a member of the other political party in power. And if there is still a question of how this works, observe the actions of the majority leader of the Senate. In November Mitch McConnell said he believed the women who accused Roy of pedophilia were truthful. He is no longer offended by the thought of a pedophile joining him in the Senate. He did acknowledge, however that if Roy is elected “he would immediately have an ethics committee case and the committee would take a look at the situation and give us advice.” It is unclear what advice Mr. McConnell and his colleagues who have said they believe Roy’s accusers are truthful, are seeking. Perhaps they want to know if any of them has a semblance of a conscience. Many of us could answer that without asking the ethics committee.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The Christian and the Cake
The hippo’s feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.
— T.S.Eliot, The Hippopotamus
December 5, 2017 is the magic date. That is the date the United States Supreme Court will hear the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which might also be called the Wedding Cake, the Lord and Jack Phillips.
Jack Phillips is the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. One of the things Jack loves to do is bake cakes. He does it in the shop in which his cakes are also sold and, as he will be the first to modestly tell you, God is his chef. He and God work hand in hand producing Jack’s wonderful creations. (Creating things is, of course, God’s strong suit and, in God, Jack has an able assistant.) God, through one of the Ten Commandments, instructed Jack to love his neighbor as himself, and, presumably, treat his neighbor as he would be treated, and Jesus described that Commandment as one of the two most important commandments ever pronounced, the other having to do with loving God. Those commandments, (along with the other eight) were promulgated, as it were, before the United States Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution (which is in the same category of really important pronouncements as the Ten Commandments) had said gays had a right to marry. Jack is sure that when the “love thy neighbor as thyself” was announced, that did not mean that Jack had to love his neighbor as himself if the neighbor was gay.
Since God forgot to say anything about loving gay people as you love yourself, Jack considers himself a self-deputized spokesman for God. What Jack said God told him to do, is to save his baking skills for the heterosexual. That is not quite how God put it. The way God put it, using Jack as his spokesman, is that Jack should not make cakes for gay people to use at their weddings because it violates Jack’s Christian beliefs, and Jack’s Christian beliefs are, of course, derived from God. There is no indication that God has any objection to Jack selling cakes to people who are gay nor, apparently, does God object to a gay person eating one of Jack’s cakes. God’s only objection to cakes and gays, is if Jack makes a cake that is specifically baked to be served at a wedding of gay people.
To some it might seem curious that when considering for whom Jack may bake, God has focused on weddings of people who are gay. Acting as God’s spokesperson, Jack has not said God would object if he elects to bake a cake for a wedding of an heterosexual couple, each of whom was previously married and who, while married, committed adultery. God, speaking through Jack, would say that Jack has no objection to baking a cake for that occasion even though one of the Ten Commandments specifically prohibits committing adultery. To bake a cake for those who commit adultery would seem to be as bad as, if not worse, than baking a cake for gays, since adultery is expressly forbidden by God.
There is a reason God has made himself known in Jack’s kitchen. It is because of what could be called a “Godly oversight.” Jack is addressing an issue that God had overlooked because it never occurred to Him that men would want to marry men or women would want to marry women. From God’s perspective, men marrying women and women marrying men made perfectly good sense since that way people would reproduce. As an added bonus, the process of insuring that there would always be people on the earth was fun for the participants in the process. Had God thought of the now common alternative and wanted to ban it, He could have come up with an 11th Commandment. It would have read something like this: “Thou shall not bake wedding cakes when the weddings are for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.”
One thing is absolutely clear. God is indebted to Jack for letting people know how God would have felt about gay marriage had God thought of it when assisting in the promulgation of the Ten Commandments. And God is no doubt especially pleased that rather than having his feelings about gay marriage explained by some prelate in fancy dress in a magnificent church or cathedral, he has imparted his message through a simple and humble baker in a place called Lakewood, Colorado. Now God will join the baker in awaiting the decision of an entity almost as important as God, an entity whose decisions frequently have more far reaching effect than God’s own pronouncements-the United States Supreme Court. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Trump and Tragedy
[T]he essence of tragedy is killing eternity.
—Miguel de Unamuno, —San Manuel Bueno, Prologue
Events of the last six weeks have given us the opportunity to see how creatively DJT can respond to violent attacks-attacks that were similar in that lots of people were killed and injured, but different in how DJT responded to each of them.
The first attack took place in early October in Las Vegas, Nevada. Six hours after the attack, DJT sent his condolences to “the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting” and described the act, committed by an American citizen, as an “act of pure evil.” In describing the shooter, DJT said the shooter was “a sick demented man” whose “wires are screwed up.” Since the attacker used a variety of firearms, DJT was presented with an opportunity to discuss the role firearms play in the United States where more than 30 people a day are killed by guns. When asked about that, he said that the U.S. would “be talking about gun laws as time goes by.” He did, however, somewhat inexplicably, say of the event: “What happened is, in many ways, a miracle. The police department, they’ve done such an incredible job. And we’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes on. . . .” He was less reserved in addressing the attack four weeks later in New York City. Unlike his response to Las Vegas, he saw no reason to wait with taking action with respect to the massacre as “time goes on.” He acted immediately.
The New York City perpetrator was a green card holder from Uzbekistan. And the fact that he was an immigrant was seized on by DJT with his first tweets about the attack. Unlike his belief that it was too soon to discuss gun legislation, following a slaughter enabled by guns, he had no reluctance to address the fact that the New York city killer was an immigrant. In a tweet he said: “I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this.” What part of the New York City tragedy suggests that some would favor viewing the tragedy through a politically correct lens is not explained. And since there are many more gun deaths in the United States committed by United States citizens than by immigrants, it is not clear how DJT’s extreme vetting will reduce the number of terrorist attacks that take place in the United States
The recent killings in the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, evoked a different response from DJT. Whereas the Las Vegas tragedy was “an act of pure evil” perpetrated by a “a sick demented man” whose “wires are screwed up” and the New York City killing was effected by a legal immigrant, DJT said of the Texas massacre that this “isn’t a guns situation” but a “mental health situation.” And when DJT uttered those words, he had already taken steps to address the mental health issue that he believes triggered the Texas shooting. He did it when he submitted the budget for FY 2018 in May 2017. In that budget he proposed cuts for the federal mental health and substance abuse treatment agency by $400 million, and the Community Mental Health Services block grant by $116 million. According to the American Psychological Association, that proposed budget: “threatens critical health, scientific research and education programs that contribute to the social safety net for millions of Americans.” So you could say that DJT is batting zero for three in taking meaningful action to confront the tragedies of the last 6 weeks, unless reducing funding for mental health counts as meaningful action.
Although DJT’s comments dominated the news following these events, he was not the only commentator to make news. Following the Texas shooting, Greg Abbott, that state’s governor, went on “Outnumbered Overtime” on Fox news to suggest we should be happy that things are not worse than they are. He said: “Remember, even though we’re facing these severe tragedies — whether it be what happened in Sutherland Springs, or what happened in Las Vegas, or what happened in New York last week, or what happened in London earlier this year — we have acts of evil taking place, and because they are close in time to us right now, we think this is something heavy right now. But put this in the context of history. Look at what happened with Hitler during the horrific events during that era and Mussolini and go back in time before that to the earlier ages, the Middle Ages, when people committed horrific crimes, and when you go back through the history of the Bible, there was evil that took place from earliest stages of the Bible to post-New Testament, so evil is something that has permeated this world.” The fact that the United States has not yet descended to the levels of Hitler’s Germany, notwithstanding the licenses to hate that DJT has issued to his followers, is of no comfort to most citizens. Someone should mention that to Greg Abbott.