WHICH ROMANCE MOVIE BEST REPRESENTS YOUR LOVE LIFE? I'm "Casablanca": "'You must remember this, a kiss is still a kiss.' Your romance is Casablanca. A classic story of love in trying times, chock full of both cynicism and hope. You obviously believe in true love, but you're also
constantly aware of practicality and societal expectations. That's not always fun, but at least it's realistic. Try not to let the Nazis get you down too much."
Via Dave Tepper.
Monday, December 15, 2003
IRS VS BOOKSTORES UPDATE: Corner Comics capitulates--not enough money to fight the IRS on their terms; Journalista! takes a stab at untangling the relevant tax law, and wishes there were a trade organization to help retailers in situations like this.
When tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing,
When friends rejoice both far and near,
How can I keep from singing?
Iraqi blog round-ups here and here.
Plus more here (must-read): "...When he announced 'We got him' everyone in the room cheered out loud. The following video of Saddam in his long hair and beard was a shock to us all. My grandmother burst in tears.
"...I had no reason to, but I felt humiliated. I sank into an overwhelming depression and sadness, and I had a desperate need to get terribly drunk. I should have felt joy but I didn't. And I'm still disappointed with myself.
"I went out again, the streets were empty now, everyone was at home watching the news. Celebratory gunfire continued for hours. In the evening, I went out to find armed teenagers filling our street carrying Saddam's pictures. They were shouting the vilest things about Sistani, Hakim, and even Ali Bin Abi Talib. Some of the mob were dressed in Fedayeen clothes with grenades and explosives in their hands. I got foolish and tried to take photographs. They dragged me in their midst and I thought this was it. Some accused me of being a spy, and others shouted 'Kill the bastard.' My parents and some neighbours were all over me and convinced the kids to leave me alone. After that they blocked the street and started to threaten passing cars, all the while shooting in the air. 4 or 5 IP cars showed up and the crowd dissipated. Shops closed and the streets were empty again." more
and here: "We both agree that this is the last chance for the radical Shii to make a mark. It could amount to a Revolution within the Occupation. ...I have argued that since Iran is on its last legs, and in sight of a 'velvet' revolution itself, within, say, 9-12 months, the obvious way for the Mullahs to shore up their position would be to destabilise Iraq. The majority of Iraqi Shii are moderate, but the mood is distinctly anti-American because that is the nature of the beast : they are Muslims and the Americans are not. " more
and here: "I just talked to some Iraqi friends in Baghdad and here's what they report...."
Oh and I agree with Mark Shea that this is the right reaction, and a hard one: "We want to see him in a cage bending more and more, humiliated more and more, just as he forced all the Iraqis to bend to him, like they were his slaves. But we will not be like him, we will give him a fair trial, and he will get just what he deserves, although I have no idea what does he really deserve."
Much commentary from varying perspectives at Oxblog, The Corner, and Unqualified Offerings, all very much worth your time. Jonathan Adler makes the best case I've heard so far for an international tribunal; UO points out the shakiness of the "Atta trained with Abu Nidal in Baghdad" story. And I've added Baghdad Skies to the blogroll--found via BuzzMachine, which I should also add back.
And hear their death-knell ringing,
When friends rejoice both far and near,
How can I keep from singing?
Iraqi blog round-ups here and here.
Plus more here (must-read): "...When he announced 'We got him' everyone in the room cheered out loud. The following video of Saddam in his long hair and beard was a shock to us all. My grandmother burst in tears.
"...I had no reason to, but I felt humiliated. I sank into an overwhelming depression and sadness, and I had a desperate need to get terribly drunk. I should have felt joy but I didn't. And I'm still disappointed with myself.
"I went out again, the streets were empty now, everyone was at home watching the news. Celebratory gunfire continued for hours. In the evening, I went out to find armed teenagers filling our street carrying Saddam's pictures. They were shouting the vilest things about Sistani, Hakim, and even Ali Bin Abi Talib. Some of the mob were dressed in Fedayeen clothes with grenades and explosives in their hands. I got foolish and tried to take photographs. They dragged me in their midst and I thought this was it. Some accused me of being a spy, and others shouted 'Kill the bastard.' My parents and some neighbours were all over me and convinced the kids to leave me alone. After that they blocked the street and started to threaten passing cars, all the while shooting in the air. 4 or 5 IP cars showed up and the crowd dissipated. Shops closed and the streets were empty again." more
and here: "We both agree that this is the last chance for the radical Shii to make a mark. It could amount to a Revolution within the Occupation. ...I have argued that since Iran is on its last legs, and in sight of a 'velvet' revolution itself, within, say, 9-12 months, the obvious way for the Mullahs to shore up their position would be to destabilise Iraq. The majority of Iraqi Shii are moderate, but the mood is distinctly anti-American because that is the nature of the beast : they are Muslims and the Americans are not. " more
and here: "I just talked to some Iraqi friends in Baghdad and here's what they report...."
Oh and I agree with Mark Shea that this is the right reaction, and a hard one: "We want to see him in a cage bending more and more, humiliated more and more, just as he forced all the Iraqis to bend to him, like they were his slaves. But we will not be like him, we will give him a fair trial, and he will get just what he deserves, although I have no idea what does he really deserve."
Much commentary from varying perspectives at Oxblog, The Corner, and Unqualified Offerings, all very much worth your time. Jonathan Adler makes the best case I've heard so far for an international tribunal; UO points out the shakiness of the "Atta trained with Abu Nidal in Baghdad" story. And I've added Baghdad Skies to the blogroll--found via BuzzMachine, which I should also add back.
Friday, December 12, 2003
RAMESH PONNURU ON JUDICIAL REFORM: "One sometimes runs across conservatives who are hostile in principle to judicial review and want to abolish it. I'm not one of them, although I definitely understand the impulse. I do, however, want to strengthen constitutional checks on the power of the federal judiciary. For example, I'd like to see Congress exercise its power to regulate the courts' jurisdiction. Most conservatives, and especially most conservative lawyers, have preferred to concentrate their efforts on getting "good judges" confirmed. They have had a variety of reasons for this preference. One of those reasons--not the most important reason, as it happens, but a reason--is that anything that tends to weaken the ability of the federal judiciary to invalidate laws would weaken its ability to invalidate laws that conservatives believe are unconstitutional.
"Liberals (and libertarians) may want the courts to strike down laws against abortion and pornography. Conservatives (and libertarians) want the Court to protect political speech, commercial speech, federalism, and executive-branch powers from laws that meddle with them. They want the Court to strike down racial preferences. They want it to invalidate state laws that they regard as violations of religious liberty (such as the Blaine amendments that prohibit government funding for religious schools).
"Whether conservatives are right to want all of these things is a question for another day. My point today is that in practice, conservatives don't get many of them."
more
"Liberals (and libertarians) may want the courts to strike down laws against abortion and pornography. Conservatives (and libertarians) want the Court to protect political speech, commercial speech, federalism, and executive-branch powers from laws that meddle with them. They want the Court to strike down racial preferences. They want it to invalidate state laws that they regard as violations of religious liberty (such as the Blaine amendments that prohibit government funding for religious schools).
"Whether conservatives are right to want all of these things is a question for another day. My point today is that in practice, conservatives don't get many of them."
more
SAMPLE LETTER TO A REPRESENTATIVE about the Corner Comics/IRS vs. comic shops, used bookstores, and assorted small businesses mishegoss.
FORUM 18: "Forum 18 believes that religious freedom is a fundamental human right, which is essential for the dignity of humanity and for true freedom. ...
"Forum 18 News Service (F18News) is a Christian initiative which is independent of any one church or religious group. Its independence is safeguarded by a board whose members are Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians, and who are responsible for matters of policy and fundraising. F18News is committed to Jesus Christ's command to do to others what you would have them do to you, and so reports on threats and actions against the religious freedom of all people, regardless of their religious affiliation."
This seems to be what has taken the Keston News Service's place, providing on-the-ground reporting on religious freedom in places like Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Definitely worth a look.
"Forum 18 News Service (F18News) is a Christian initiative which is independent of any one church or religious group. Its independence is safeguarded by a board whose members are Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians, and who are responsible for matters of policy and fundraising. F18News is committed to Jesus Christ's command to do to others what you would have them do to you, and so reports on threats and actions against the religious freedom of all people, regardless of their religious affiliation."
This seems to be what has taken the Keston News Service's place, providing on-the-ground reporting on religious freedom in places like Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Definitely worth a look.
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY BOOKSTORES?: I know there are lawyers and legal experts who read this blog! Here's a really troubling case for you all to look at:
"The owner of my local comic shop, Paige Gifford, was approached by the IRS in March for a 'compliance audit.' The brand-spankin new agent they had put on her case didn't believe she could make a living selling comics. Once she was able to prove that she was in compliance, and not selling something on the side, and that yes, she did make a living selling comic books, the agent went after her inventory. He said that he knew how much baseball cards are worth, and so old comics must be worth a lot of money. He estimated how much her backstock was worth (based on his own bizarre calculation). He then told her that she hadn't paid taxes on her inventory, and that she owed $14,000 in taxes. She's a small business owner. $14,000 is a lot of money.
"So she got some help. At times the thing seemed almost resolved. But the IRS is determined to run her out of business. Within the last week she was told that she cannot have any backstock of comics. She has to destroy her backstock--shred or burn every comic book--by December 31st in order to get out of the debt. And she needs a receipt to prove that she destroyed the comics. Otherwise, she owes the IRS $14,000, and will owe the IRS an inventory tax every year from here on out. Even though her lawyer and accountant are convinced that she's completely in compliance with every pertainable law.
"I don't know about you, but if this audit is applied equally and across the board on all small-business owners, I don't think there will be any bookstores or comic book stores left that are locally owned. You cannot have a decent comic shop without backstock, and according to the IRS, backstock is NOT ALLOWED."
updates
a letter from the shop owner
links to taxpayers' groups
more: "This case has the power to put most of the country's comic book stores, and most of the country's used book stores, out of business. It probably has implications for second-hand stores of all kinds, which means it poses a huge danger to readers and consumers. You and I will have fewer choices and the ones left to you will cost you more."
more
comments-box discussion of the tax-technical issues here
"The owner of my local comic shop, Paige Gifford, was approached by the IRS in March for a 'compliance audit.' The brand-spankin new agent they had put on her case didn't believe she could make a living selling comics. Once she was able to prove that she was in compliance, and not selling something on the side, and that yes, she did make a living selling comic books, the agent went after her inventory. He said that he knew how much baseball cards are worth, and so old comics must be worth a lot of money. He estimated how much her backstock was worth (based on his own bizarre calculation). He then told her that she hadn't paid taxes on her inventory, and that she owed $14,000 in taxes. She's a small business owner. $14,000 is a lot of money.
"So she got some help. At times the thing seemed almost resolved. But the IRS is determined to run her out of business. Within the last week she was told that she cannot have any backstock of comics. She has to destroy her backstock--shred or burn every comic book--by December 31st in order to get out of the debt. And she needs a receipt to prove that she destroyed the comics. Otherwise, she owes the IRS $14,000, and will owe the IRS an inventory tax every year from here on out. Even though her lawyer and accountant are convinced that she's completely in compliance with every pertainable law.
"I don't know about you, but if this audit is applied equally and across the board on all small-business owners, I don't think there will be any bookstores or comic book stores left that are locally owned. You cannot have a decent comic shop without backstock, and according to the IRS, backstock is NOT ALLOWED."
updates
a letter from the shop owner
links to taxpayers' groups
more: "This case has the power to put most of the country's comic book stores, and most of the country's used book stores, out of business. It probably has implications for second-hand stores of all kinds, which means it poses a huge danger to readers and consumers. You and I will have fewer choices and the ones left to you will cost you more."
more
comments-box discussion of the tax-technical issues here
CLONING IN NEW JERSEY: From the Weekly Standard: USING "embryonic stem cell research" (ESCR) as a Trojan Horse, the authors of New Jersey Assembly Bill 2840 are trying to sneak one of the most radical human cloning legalization schemes ever proposed into law. How radical is A-2840? If the bill passes, it will be legal in New Jersey to implant cloned human embryos into wombs, gestate them for up to nine months, and then destroy them for use in research.
more
Me on embryo-destructive research.
more
Me on embryo-destructive research.
If you want to touch the sky
Just put a blogwatch in your eye...
Hit & Run slams the campaign finance reform decision: "That there's a 'media exemption' only makes it more grotesque--one powerful faction in society (elected officials) throwing a bone to another (the press)."
And Volokh hits the other side of the "newspapers are corporations too" coin: "I've mentioned before that I think corporate speech should be just a protected as noncorporate speech. One piece of evidence for this position is that newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, and other media outlets tend to be corporations, too. So far, the restrictions on corporate speech related to campaigns have excluded the media, at least as to some of its functions ('news stor[ies], commentar[ies], or editorial[s],' in the BCRA statute that was just upheld). But (1) it's not clear why some corporations should have more statutory speech rights than others, and (2) these exemptions from the media are, under the Court's logic, matters of legislative charity; legislatures could, if they wanted to, restrict newspapers, TV stations, and cable programs owned by corporations just as they restrict speech by other corporations."
I don't think we know whether the long-range effects of the CFR bill will be good for media corporations (they become proportionately much bigger fish in a proportionately smaller pond), bad for media corporations (if future legislation does try to treat e.g. FoxNews as a corporation just like any other), or neutral (because there are so many loopholes--apparently the NRA is considering forming a media corporation to run its near-election issue ads--that CFR just won't do much). But looking at the newspapers vs. other corporation issue, in general, is a great way to see the problems with CFR. Bleah.
Oxblog: Hee!
There's a whole blog devoted to the theory of punishment (and related legal and philosophical questions). Who knew? It looks super-intriguing; via L. Solum.
Henry Rollins tours with the USO.
Just put a blogwatch in your eye...
Hit & Run slams the campaign finance reform decision: "That there's a 'media exemption' only makes it more grotesque--one powerful faction in society (elected officials) throwing a bone to another (the press)."
And Volokh hits the other side of the "newspapers are corporations too" coin: "I've mentioned before that I think corporate speech should be just a protected as noncorporate speech. One piece of evidence for this position is that newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, and other media outlets tend to be corporations, too. So far, the restrictions on corporate speech related to campaigns have excluded the media, at least as to some of its functions ('news stor[ies], commentar[ies], or editorial[s],' in the BCRA statute that was just upheld). But (1) it's not clear why some corporations should have more statutory speech rights than others, and (2) these exemptions from the media are, under the Court's logic, matters of legislative charity; legislatures could, if they wanted to, restrict newspapers, TV stations, and cable programs owned by corporations just as they restrict speech by other corporations."
I don't think we know whether the long-range effects of the CFR bill will be good for media corporations (they become proportionately much bigger fish in a proportionately smaller pond), bad for media corporations (if future legislation does try to treat e.g. FoxNews as a corporation just like any other), or neutral (because there are so many loopholes--apparently the NRA is considering forming a media corporation to run its near-election issue ads--that CFR just won't do much). But looking at the newspapers vs. other corporation issue, in general, is a great way to see the problems with CFR. Bleah.
Oxblog: Hee!
There's a whole blog devoted to the theory of punishment (and related legal and philosophical questions). Who knew? It looks super-intriguing; via L. Solum.
Henry Rollins tours with the USO.
IRAQI PROTESTERS OUST APPOINTED GOVERNOR:
The demonstrators converged on the provincial governor's office on Sunday with banners, sleeping mats, cooking pots and a simple demand: Iskander Jawad Witwit should quit.
After three days and nights of continuous protests, Witwit did just that. But the demonstrators have refused to budge.
As soon as Witwit resigned, the local representative of the U.S. occupation authority appointed a former Iraqi air force officer as acting governor. To the protesters, that was unacceptable. The new governor, they insisted, should be chosen not by an American but by Iraqis -- through an election.
"Yes, yes for elections!" shouted the protesters, a collection of students, clerics and middle-aged professionals whose ranks swelled to more than 1,000 on Thursday. "No, no to appointment!"
The protesters have pledged to continue their sit-in outside the governor's office -- they have erected tents and dug latrines -- until their demand is met. Leaders of Hilla's largest labor unions have vowed to hold a general strike starting Saturday in support of elections.
Local leaders described the passionate but peaceful demonstration in this predominantly Shiite Muslim city as a preview of what U.S. occupiers will face if they follow through with a plan to select a provisional Iraqi government through regional caucuses instead of general elections. Although elections have become an increasingly popular rallying cry in Shiite-dominated central and southern Iraq, the protest here is the first indication that mainstream Shiites are willing to take to the streets to press the issue, adding a volatile new element to the country's impending political transition.
more
OxDem agrees with the demonstrators, by the way.
The demonstrators converged on the provincial governor's office on Sunday with banners, sleeping mats, cooking pots and a simple demand: Iskander Jawad Witwit should quit.
After three days and nights of continuous protests, Witwit did just that. But the demonstrators have refused to budge.
As soon as Witwit resigned, the local representative of the U.S. occupation authority appointed a former Iraqi air force officer as acting governor. To the protesters, that was unacceptable. The new governor, they insisted, should be chosen not by an American but by Iraqis -- through an election.
"Yes, yes for elections!" shouted the protesters, a collection of students, clerics and middle-aged professionals whose ranks swelled to more than 1,000 on Thursday. "No, no to appointment!"
The protesters have pledged to continue their sit-in outside the governor's office -- they have erected tents and dug latrines -- until their demand is met. Leaders of Hilla's largest labor unions have vowed to hold a general strike starting Saturday in support of elections.
Local leaders described the passionate but peaceful demonstration in this predominantly Shiite Muslim city as a preview of what U.S. occupiers will face if they follow through with a plan to select a provisional Iraqi government through regional caucuses instead of general elections. Although elections have become an increasingly popular rallying cry in Shiite-dominated central and southern Iraq, the protest here is the first indication that mainstream Shiites are willing to take to the streets to press the issue, adding a volatile new element to the country's impending political transition.
more
OxDem agrees with the demonstrators, by the way.
WHICH LOGICAL FALLACY ARE YOU? I'm Ad Hominem: "You are rude and inconsiderate. You don't like people and would rather not participate in public speaking as a general rule . . .except for the part where you get to make novices cry. That's fun."
Via ViciousXRedDragon.
Via ViciousXRedDragon.
WHAT KIND OF POSTMODERNIST ARE YOU? I'm a Tortured Conceptual Artist--have to say this sounds sadly true: "Your fellow postmodernists call you an anachronism, but you've never cared much about the opinions of others. After all, most of them are far too simple-minded to appreciate the nuances of your work. They talk, while you are part of a lived tradition."
Via Motime Like the Present.
Via Motime Like the Present.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
BELOW you will find: a long thing about the Establishment Clause; a silly thing about the Establishment Clause; two good Advent homilies; comparing comics to works in other media--this might be a place to find comics recommendations if you're interested and have not read much of 'em before; "how I got into comics"--medium vs genre, and problems in the industry; Martin Amis on porn.
I EDUCATE. YOU INDOCTRINATE. THEY BRAINWASH. If Joshua Davey had kept his scholarship, would that constitute a state establishment of Christianity?
Here, let me quote Dalia Lithwick: "The case was brought by Joshua Davey after a university scholarship he'd been given by the state of Washington was rescinded when he declared that one of his two majors would be in 'pastoral ministries' at a Christian college in Kirkland, Wash. Washington is one of 37 states with broader prohibitions on public spending for religious education than is required under the federal constitution. The state's constitution bars the spending of public monies on religious instruction, and they've drawn a distinction between spending on religion when it's taught in a secular manner and spending on training students for the ministry. Davey and his supporters, including the Bush administration, contend that this discriminates against the religious. Washington says it's just policing the wall between church and state."
It seems to me that John "Grotesque Anatomy" Jakala is arguing that Davey's scholarship would in fact represent establishment of religion--most explicitly in his comments box, in response to a column by me (admittedly, a column that, on re-reading, I agree is less germane to the points Jakala'd initially been making than I'd thought). If I'm misunderstanding, I do apologize, though.
The belief that discrimination against religious institutions is required by the Constitution, in order to prevent establishment of religion, is a pretty common interpretation. Thus school vouchers shouldn't be used at parochial schools or yeshivas or whatever.
I don't know whether barring religiously-affiliated schools from public scholarships (and vouchers are just scholarships, of course) is constitutionally permitted. I don't know whether Davey should win his case. I suspect he should, honestly; my reasoning is much like Eugene Volokh's here.
But I am much more sure that barring religiously-affiliated schools from public scholarships is not constitutionally required. Using a voucher or other public scholarship at a religious school is not an establishment of religion, assuming that the same voucher or scholarship could just as well be used at a non-religious school or a school professing a different religion.
Maybe some examples will help. Are any of the following public-scholarship recipients participating in establishment of religion? And, if all these cases involve the same scholarship fund... what religion, exactly, is being established?
1) Suzy Catholic studies theology at Notre Dame; she thinks she might maybe want to be a nun, and so she makes sure to take courses geared toward Carmelite spirituality (good grief, I hope they have such courses at ND!), but she maybe wants to be a comparative literature professor instead.
2) Jacob Evangelical studies medieval Islam at Georgetown (a Catholic university, or so they tell me) so he can do interfaith work and possibly missions work in an Islamic country.
3) Tricia Atheist majors in religious studies at Yale, but in her sophomore year, while still on scholarship, she converts to Judaism and refocuses her studies to prepare her for the rabbinate. Is this case different if Tricia a) never converts, remaining the only atheist in the rel-stud major? (these things do happen!), or b) remains an atheist, but attends a religiously-affiliated school?
4) Marc Catholic studies theology at Georgetown in order to get a better grounding in his faith, even though what he actually plans to be is a consultant.
5) Jenna Jew double majors in psychology and philosophy at Yale (she has no social life) in hopes that these courses will help her be a better rabbi. Does it matter if one of her professors, himself a rabbi, teaches with an eye toward pastoral work?
6) Sally Catholic (Suzy's sister), who also wants to be a nun, studies philosophy at Notre Dame, with a specialization in natural law. Three of her seven classmates (all in the same scholarship program) are Catholic; two are atheists; one is Jewish; one is a Deist, yes, a Deist.
None of these cases seem to me to be substantively, radically different from Joshua Davey's case. More importantly, if all of them are possible outcomes of the scholarship program, I really can't see how it's "establishing" any religion, or asserting a preference for religion over not-religion. (Or asserting a preference for not-religion over religion.) In fact, such a scholarship program would seem to me to be shying away as carefully as possible from anything resembling establishment of any religious belief or belief about religion. If religion is being established, again... what religion is it?
And I worry that Jakala's use of language (which I expect is the result of the quick writing one uses in comments boxes, rather than some carefully thought-through phrasing--I don't want to imply that this is how he'd write if he were writing a blog post or an op-ed or whatever) echoes the fear that underlies many of these discussions. He writes, "I don't care if I pay for children to be taught views I disagree with. But I do care if I pay for children to be indoctrinated in a particular religious tradition."
This switch from "taught" to "indoctrinated" reminds me of the old line about dirty pictures: "What I like is erotica. What you like is pornography. What they like is smut." Hence the title of this post.
Is "indoctrinating" children in a particular religious tradition different from/worse than "indoctrinating" them in a particular political or philosophical tradition (like the Afrocentrism I discussed in my column) or a particular interpretation of US history? How come? Do all religious schools "indoctrinate"? Do no non-religious schools indoctrinate? Do no public schools indoctrinate? (Am I asking "gimme" questions? :) )
This stuff becomes even harder when we're discussing colleges, since the students typically have much more choice in where they go (so "indoctrination" concerns should recede, I think) and the array of worldviews presented by the schools' professors tends to vary more. Georgetown, Notre Dame etc. offer scores of non-Catholic professors of philosophy and theology; Yale and that cold school with the weird Puritan mascot offer several deeply religious professors of ditto. As it happens, I don't think intra-university religious diversity should matter to this question--what should matter is whether the student could use the scholarship at schools of any religion or none--but it might matter to some people, so I mention it.
So yeah--the "myth of neutrality" that I discuss in that Jewish World Review column can't even be talked about until we agree on the nature of religious establishment, which so far, it seems like Jakala and I don't. I hope this has made my position at least a bit clearer.
Here, let me quote Dalia Lithwick: "The case was brought by Joshua Davey after a university scholarship he'd been given by the state of Washington was rescinded when he declared that one of his two majors would be in 'pastoral ministries' at a Christian college in Kirkland, Wash. Washington is one of 37 states with broader prohibitions on public spending for religious education than is required under the federal constitution. The state's constitution bars the spending of public monies on religious instruction, and they've drawn a distinction between spending on religion when it's taught in a secular manner and spending on training students for the ministry. Davey and his supporters, including the Bush administration, contend that this discriminates against the religious. Washington says it's just policing the wall between church and state."
It seems to me that John "Grotesque Anatomy" Jakala is arguing that Davey's scholarship would in fact represent establishment of religion--most explicitly in his comments box, in response to a column by me (admittedly, a column that, on re-reading, I agree is less germane to the points Jakala'd initially been making than I'd thought). If I'm misunderstanding, I do apologize, though.
The belief that discrimination against religious institutions is required by the Constitution, in order to prevent establishment of religion, is a pretty common interpretation. Thus school vouchers shouldn't be used at parochial schools or yeshivas or whatever.
I don't know whether barring religiously-affiliated schools from public scholarships (and vouchers are just scholarships, of course) is constitutionally permitted. I don't know whether Davey should win his case. I suspect he should, honestly; my reasoning is much like Eugene Volokh's here.
But I am much more sure that barring religiously-affiliated schools from public scholarships is not constitutionally required. Using a voucher or other public scholarship at a religious school is not an establishment of religion, assuming that the same voucher or scholarship could just as well be used at a non-religious school or a school professing a different religion.
Maybe some examples will help. Are any of the following public-scholarship recipients participating in establishment of religion? And, if all these cases involve the same scholarship fund... what religion, exactly, is being established?
1) Suzy Catholic studies theology at Notre Dame; she thinks she might maybe want to be a nun, and so she makes sure to take courses geared toward Carmelite spirituality (good grief, I hope they have such courses at ND!), but she maybe wants to be a comparative literature professor instead.
2) Jacob Evangelical studies medieval Islam at Georgetown (a Catholic university, or so they tell me) so he can do interfaith work and possibly missions work in an Islamic country.
3) Tricia Atheist majors in religious studies at Yale, but in her sophomore year, while still on scholarship, she converts to Judaism and refocuses her studies to prepare her for the rabbinate. Is this case different if Tricia a) never converts, remaining the only atheist in the rel-stud major? (these things do happen!), or b) remains an atheist, but attends a religiously-affiliated school?
4) Marc Catholic studies theology at Georgetown in order to get a better grounding in his faith, even though what he actually plans to be is a consultant.
5) Jenna Jew double majors in psychology and philosophy at Yale (she has no social life) in hopes that these courses will help her be a better rabbi. Does it matter if one of her professors, himself a rabbi, teaches with an eye toward pastoral work?
6) Sally Catholic (Suzy's sister), who also wants to be a nun, studies philosophy at Notre Dame, with a specialization in natural law. Three of her seven classmates (all in the same scholarship program) are Catholic; two are atheists; one is Jewish; one is a Deist, yes, a Deist.
None of these cases seem to me to be substantively, radically different from Joshua Davey's case. More importantly, if all of them are possible outcomes of the scholarship program, I really can't see how it's "establishing" any religion, or asserting a preference for religion over not-religion. (Or asserting a preference for not-religion over religion.) In fact, such a scholarship program would seem to me to be shying away as carefully as possible from anything resembling establishment of any religious belief or belief about religion. If religion is being established, again... what religion is it?
And I worry that Jakala's use of language (which I expect is the result of the quick writing one uses in comments boxes, rather than some carefully thought-through phrasing--I don't want to imply that this is how he'd write if he were writing a blog post or an op-ed or whatever) echoes the fear that underlies many of these discussions. He writes, "I don't care if I pay for children to be taught views I disagree with. But I do care if I pay for children to be indoctrinated in a particular religious tradition."
This switch from "taught" to "indoctrinated" reminds me of the old line about dirty pictures: "What I like is erotica. What you like is pornography. What they like is smut." Hence the title of this post.
Is "indoctrinating" children in a particular religious tradition different from/worse than "indoctrinating" them in a particular political or philosophical tradition (like the Afrocentrism I discussed in my column) or a particular interpretation of US history? How come? Do all religious schools "indoctrinate"? Do no non-religious schools indoctrinate? Do no public schools indoctrinate? (Am I asking "gimme" questions? :) )
This stuff becomes even harder when we're discussing colleges, since the students typically have much more choice in where they go (so "indoctrination" concerns should recede, I think) and the array of worldviews presented by the schools' professors tends to vary more. Georgetown, Notre Dame etc. offer scores of non-Catholic professors of philosophy and theology; Yale and that cold school with the weird Puritan mascot offer several deeply religious professors of ditto. As it happens, I don't think intra-university religious diversity should matter to this question--what should matter is whether the student could use the scholarship at schools of any religion or none--but it might matter to some people, so I mention it.
So yeah--the "myth of neutrality" that I discuss in that Jewish World Review column can't even be talked about until we agree on the nature of religious establishment, which so far, it seems like Jakala and I don't. I hope this has made my position at least a bit clearer.
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUS: That's what I'd do, if I were a bratty Christian and/or libertarian student who wanted to take the piss--set up some kind of Santa display in whatever passed for the local public square, and label him Establishment Claus. I'm anti-civic Deism, and anti-Santa Claus as generic symbol of the Winter Shopping Festival rather than actual Christian saint, so it would be fun to see the fireworks that would ensue. You could make Est. Claus more or less Christian depending on the reaction you wanted to provoke!
More on the actual establishment clause in a moment.
More on the actual establishment clause in a moment.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
I COMPLAIN A LOT about Saint Matthew's Cathedral, my usual church. But Advent seems to have brought out the best in the 5:30 homilist (yes, I am that lazy), who I think is Msgr. Jameson--? The past two Sundays have brought us really good homilies.
The first Sunday of Advent we were reminded that Advent shouldn't just be a kind of seasonal costume parade, where we all pretend like Jesus is coming for the first time, make-believe. Advent should be an opportunity to relive the coming of Christ by opening our own hearts--our own lives--more deeply to Him. It should be a reminder that we have to relive Advent for real, not for show, all year; both reminder and practice, really. I liked this because it's way too easy to read the Catholic emphasis on liturgical seasons as a kind of costumery, rather than as a reflection of seasons of the heart and a way to practice responding to those seasons.
The second homily was on exile. I wish I remembered it better, since this is something of an obsession of mine--all Christians are exiles. Hence the insistent tone of the "Hail Holy Queen"; hence, too, the Christian identification (when we're doing what we should...) with the outcast. The homilist reminded us to live as exiles, and also to care for those, such as refugees, whose exile is temporal rather than existential in nature.
The first Sunday of Advent we were reminded that Advent shouldn't just be a kind of seasonal costume parade, where we all pretend like Jesus is coming for the first time, make-believe. Advent should be an opportunity to relive the coming of Christ by opening our own hearts--our own lives--more deeply to Him. It should be a reminder that we have to relive Advent for real, not for show, all year; both reminder and practice, really. I liked this because it's way too easy to read the Catholic emphasis on liturgical seasons as a kind of costumery, rather than as a reflection of seasons of the heart and a way to practice responding to those seasons.
The second homily was on exile. I wish I remembered it better, since this is something of an obsession of mine--all Christians are exiles. Hence the insistent tone of the "Hail Holy Queen"; hence, too, the Christian identification (when we're doing what we should...) with the outcast. The homilist reminded us to live as exiles, and also to care for those, such as refugees, whose exile is temporal rather than existential in nature.
COMICS LIKE WHAT YOU LIKE: I get a lot of people asking me, essentially, What's a nice girl like you doing in a semi-comics blog like this? This is because people generally think of comics (a medium) as superheroes (a genre--even a subgenre); see below for more on that. So I figured what I'd do is go through the really fun/powerful comics I own and tell you what they're like, and if they're like what you like, maybe you should check them out! Adding the visual storytelling really does change the shape of the stories in a way I find totally intriguing--if you like the ways movies differ from books, you probably will also like the ways comics differ from books.
So, in alphabetical order, and with no attempt to keep genres together:
Brian Bendis, Alias: "Sweet Smell of Success" meets the chick version of a Graham Greene antihero. The visual acuity of Lee Miller, the ferocious dialogue of "Gilda" run through a shredder. (Is that one of those meaningless critic-sentences? I hope not. What I mean is that the content of the dialogue is as furious as in the best noir, but the style is more realistic, less repartee-ish. Some people are distracted and irked by Bendis's attempts to mimic real speech patterns while making his dialogue much snappier than what real people say; I think it's the best of both worlds, and it definitely makes me more attentive to how people talk out here in real reality. Oh, reminding me! if you like Pat Cadigan's Mindplayers you have no excuse for not picking up Alias. Alias is better.)
Grant Morrison's Animal Man is like Jorge Borges goes to Disney World with Peter Singer. Crazy metafictional stuff, less symmetrical than Borges but, frankly, more fun. Fans of The Counterlife might also dig this. What you should do to know if you want to read it: a) read this column (which spoils significant bits of plot, but which does give you a great sense of why this comic is cool) or b) stand in a comics shop and read "The Coyote Gospel," from the first book.
Brian Bendis, Daredevil: "Sweet Smell of Success" maybe? Am I just saying that because I like both DD and "SSOS" a lot? Bendis in general has a real SSOS feel, and it's probably my favorite noir, so that's high praise.
Wendy and Richard Pini, ElfQuest books 1 through 4 (but not after): What's your favorite children's fantasy epic? Artistically better than the Alanna books, more blunt and contemporary (yes, despite the elves) than Lord of the Rings. Get this for a kid you know, then read it yourself before you wrap it. (Am I right in thinking they re-colored the new editions? Try to get the old ones, if so.)
Carla Speed McNeil, Finder: Sin-Eater 1 and 2: Samuel R. Delany, only with more vivid characters. I wish I had more to say about this, since if you like science fiction or want to read about gender or guilt this is a must-read.
Human Target: Final Cut: "The Usual Suspects," or "L.A. Confidential." Slick neo-noir-y-type-thing. Fun, not wildly meaningful, but fun. It has plot/theme points in common with both those movies.
Like a River: I can't think of anything this is "like," but it's a ramshackle Russian story of little lives, exploring the chasm between father and son. You know what it really reminds me of, sort of? Patti Smith's song "Birdland." And "Elegy." Both together.
Los Bros. Hernandez, Love and Rockets: Hard to describe this series, in part because it does everything it does about a million times better than anyone else attempting the same genres in different media. So... imagine if magical realism were good, instead of crap like it mostly is. Imagine if telenovelas grabbed your heart and squeezed, kept you on the edge of your seat with real psychological insight and real human drama rather than sentiment, cliched suspense, and melodrama. Imagine how you felt when you heard that first punk record, then the second one, and it was like a whole world of people insane the way you were just opened up. Then imagine if someone remembered that feeling and grew up anyway. Mix one shot "Cheap Tragedies" with two shots Flannery O'Connor and a jigger of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and shoot. Best place to start is maybe The Death of Speedy?
Alan Moore, A Small Killing: Brightness Falls in the hallucinatory style of Marc Chagall doing the design for "Jacob's Ladder," and with the attention to sexual corruption of "The Ice Storm." A small but harsh story.
Brian Bendis, Torso: If you like true crime and/or those newspaper noirs starring Edward G. Robinson, you will almost certainly like this. Next try Bendis's Jinx (better overall, more visually distinctive, but with a flaccid midsection and a short bit of most interest to superhero fans) or Goldfish (lowlife criminal/family drama).
EDITED TO ADD: Junji Ito, Uzumaki vol. 1 (I wasn't so into 2 and 3, but you might be): Eerie, haunting horror. Not "Misery" or even "Blair Witch"-style horror; much weirder than that. Very Japanese Magritte, with an assist from the titles and music of "Vertigo"??? The Hitchcock it feels most like is "The Birds."
Alan Moore, Watchmen: You know, I don't really know what to compare this to--which is a good sign. My advice is to check out some of the other stuff on this list, or on somebody else's comics list, and if you don't react weirdly just to the whole pictures plus words combination, read this. Does for superhero comics what Measure for Measure did for Elizabethan romantic comedy--does that help? Probably not. It's much more hopeful than M4M but has some of the same sense of drawing out the corruption underlying a genre. And just as you should read M4M even if you've never read Eliz. rom. com.s, in part because ERCs' sensibilities still shape our perceptions of romance, so you should read Watchmen even if you're not into superhero comics, in part because superhero comics' sensibilities--like it or not--still shape our perceptions of power.
So, in alphabetical order, and with no attempt to keep genres together:
Brian Bendis, Alias: "Sweet Smell of Success" meets the chick version of a Graham Greene antihero. The visual acuity of Lee Miller, the ferocious dialogue of "Gilda" run through a shredder. (Is that one of those meaningless critic-sentences? I hope not. What I mean is that the content of the dialogue is as furious as in the best noir, but the style is more realistic, less repartee-ish. Some people are distracted and irked by Bendis's attempts to mimic real speech patterns while making his dialogue much snappier than what real people say; I think it's the best of both worlds, and it definitely makes me more attentive to how people talk out here in real reality. Oh, reminding me! if you like Pat Cadigan's Mindplayers you have no excuse for not picking up Alias. Alias is better.)
Grant Morrison's Animal Man is like Jorge Borges goes to Disney World with Peter Singer. Crazy metafictional stuff, less symmetrical than Borges but, frankly, more fun. Fans of The Counterlife might also dig this. What you should do to know if you want to read it: a) read this column (which spoils significant bits of plot, but which does give you a great sense of why this comic is cool) or b) stand in a comics shop and read "The Coyote Gospel," from the first book.
Brian Bendis, Daredevil: "Sweet Smell of Success" maybe? Am I just saying that because I like both DD and "SSOS" a lot? Bendis in general has a real SSOS feel, and it's probably my favorite noir, so that's high praise.
Wendy and Richard Pini, ElfQuest books 1 through 4 (but not after): What's your favorite children's fantasy epic? Artistically better than the Alanna books, more blunt and contemporary (yes, despite the elves) than Lord of the Rings. Get this for a kid you know, then read it yourself before you wrap it. (Am I right in thinking they re-colored the new editions? Try to get the old ones, if so.)
Carla Speed McNeil, Finder: Sin-Eater 1 and 2: Samuel R. Delany, only with more vivid characters. I wish I had more to say about this, since if you like science fiction or want to read about gender or guilt this is a must-read.
Human Target: Final Cut: "The Usual Suspects," or "L.A. Confidential." Slick neo-noir-y-type-thing. Fun, not wildly meaningful, but fun. It has plot/theme points in common with both those movies.
Like a River: I can't think of anything this is "like," but it's a ramshackle Russian story of little lives, exploring the chasm between father and son. You know what it really reminds me of, sort of? Patti Smith's song "Birdland." And "Elegy." Both together.
Los Bros. Hernandez, Love and Rockets: Hard to describe this series, in part because it does everything it does about a million times better than anyone else attempting the same genres in different media. So... imagine if magical realism were good, instead of crap like it mostly is. Imagine if telenovelas grabbed your heart and squeezed, kept you on the edge of your seat with real psychological insight and real human drama rather than sentiment, cliched suspense, and melodrama. Imagine how you felt when you heard that first punk record, then the second one, and it was like a whole world of people insane the way you were just opened up. Then imagine if someone remembered that feeling and grew up anyway. Mix one shot "Cheap Tragedies" with two shots Flannery O'Connor and a jigger of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and shoot. Best place to start is maybe The Death of Speedy?
Alan Moore, A Small Killing: Brightness Falls in the hallucinatory style of Marc Chagall doing the design for "Jacob's Ladder," and with the attention to sexual corruption of "The Ice Storm." A small but harsh story.
Brian Bendis, Torso: If you like true crime and/or those newspaper noirs starring Edward G. Robinson, you will almost certainly like this. Next try Bendis's Jinx (better overall, more visually distinctive, but with a flaccid midsection and a short bit of most interest to superhero fans) or Goldfish (lowlife criminal/family drama).
EDITED TO ADD: Junji Ito, Uzumaki vol. 1 (I wasn't so into 2 and 3, but you might be): Eerie, haunting horror. Not "Misery" or even "Blair Witch"-style horror; much weirder than that. Very Japanese Magritte, with an assist from the titles and music of "Vertigo"??? The Hitchcock it feels most like is "The Birds."
Alan Moore, Watchmen: You know, I don't really know what to compare this to--which is a good sign. My advice is to check out some of the other stuff on this list, or on somebody else's comics list, and if you don't react weirdly just to the whole pictures plus words combination, read this. Does for superhero comics what Measure for Measure did for Elizabethan romantic comedy--does that help? Probably not. It's much more hopeful than M4M but has some of the same sense of drawing out the corruption underlying a genre. And just as you should read M4M even if you've never read Eliz. rom. com.s, in part because ERCs' sensibilities still shape our perceptions of romance, so you should read Watchmen even if you're not into superhero comics, in part because superhero comics' sensibilities--like it or not--still shape our perceptions of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)