Lex Communis

Sunday, May 18, 2008

 

Odd Thomas

Dean Koontz is coming out with a new Odd Thomas novel - "Odd Hours" - this Tuesday, May 20.

Here is a "trailer" for the book:



There is also a graphic novel - In Odd We Trust - coming out in June.

Labels: Literature, Personal stuff

Peter Sean Bradley 11:30 AM

|

Saturday, May 17, 2008

 

It is not a flying car or lunar colony, but it is pretty cool.

The 21st Century has mostly been a bust from the perspective of what Walter Cronkite promised us back in 1965.

In my opinion, however, the Amazon Kindle goes a long way to redeem Cronkite's promises. Here's a review.

I have one and it is "Dick Tracy's watch" cool. I'm a reader and I always have a dozen or so books going at any one time. The big issue for me when I go on trips is what half dozen books should go with me. Usually, the books end up in my suitcase and my clothes go into a bag.

With the Kindle, I can download vast numbers of books and take them all. Also, I don't throw away books, except for "lending" them to Penner, which amounts to the same thing, so shelf space is a critically limited resource. With the Kindle, I get to keep the book and not use up shelf space. This feature - and the generally lower book prices - will pay for the Kindle in no time.

I also have the Sony Reader, and I dropped the Sony Reader in favor of the Kindle in about 5 seconds. The Reader's selection of books is tragically limited compared to the Kindle and the really cool feature of the Kindle that allows me to order and download books wirelessly, such as when I'm sitting in a book club at a coffee shop, makes the Reader as antiquated as a buggy whip.

The Kindle is a gadget that makes book-addicts and gadget-addicts break into a cold sweat when they see it.

If I hadn't bought myself one, I would be laying out broad hints about what my family could get me Father's Day.

Labels: Personal stuff

Peter Sean Bradley 9:29 AM

|

Friday, May 16, 2008

 

Yikes!

The 5 Creepiest but true urban legends.

Labels: Internet Museum of Curiosities

Peter Sean Bradley 12:34 PM

|

Thursday, May 15, 2008

 

Funny Video

Labels: Humor

Peter Sean Bradley 6:33 PM

|

 

Next up....Polygamy as a Constitutional Right

Despite the several times that California voters have rejected gay marriage in California, a fairly conservative Supreme Court has enacted it into law...or, more properly, discovered that the framers of the California Consitution always intended that men could marry men.

A few questions:

First, why not polygamy? Why is "two" a "magic number"? Could it be because we have two arms? Could it be because we have two eyes?

Or could it be because there are two sexes, and now that the idea that the complementarity of the different genders is now considered outmoded and irrelevant, why should "two" be a limitation any more than the idea that a "man" and a "woman" constitute a married couple?

Second, haven't we always known that this was going to happen? It didn't matter how often the voters stated their sovereign preference by wide margins that they wanted to structure their society around the idea that marriage was intrinsically and essentially connected to procreation, we've always known that gay marriage would make its march through the elite governance system.

And now it has happened.

What has happened to the ideal of democracy? The idea that citizens govern rather than are subjects of their governors seems to have died a silent, unlamented death.

What is the point of making sure that "every vote counts" when a majority vote doesn't count?

Strange days are ahead, not the least of which is that we have been on a long journey against the basic democratic notions that this country was founded upon.

"The California Supreme Court has your back" Update:

At least the California Supreme Court is going through the motions of trying to constitutionalize the "number 2" - founded as it is on the great constitutional principle that while the fact that there are two sexes is irrelevant to marriage, the number "two" is the burning core of "true marriage" because.....they say so.

The Court dropped a footnote that simply has to push the needle of unintended humor.

After spending nearly 30 pages explaining how wrong traditional American culture has been for the last 40 years - before it does on to explain how California voters really didn't know what they were doing 8 years ago - the Court drops this re-assuring footnote:

52. We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. (See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 165-166; Davis v. Beason (1890) 133 U.S. 333, 341; People v. Scott (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 192-194; State v. Freeman (Ohio Ct.App. 2003) 801 N.E.2d 906, 909; Smith v. State (Tenn.Crim.App. 1999) 6 S.W.3d 512, 518-520.) Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individualsand gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. (Accord, e.g., Potter v. Murray City (C.D. Utah 1984) 585 F.Supp. 1126, 1137-1140, affd. (10th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-1071, cert. den. (1985) 474 U.S. 849; People v. Scott, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 193-194.) Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.

< sarcasm >Right that makes perfectly logical sense.< /sarcasm >

Because we know that no court in the future - say, within the next 8 years - would ever look back on the dark ages of prejudice, i.e., 2008, to explain that the then prevailing cultural mores stifled the ability of people who were "wired" to express themselves through polygamy.

After all, the Court's 2008 decision is basing its holding that polygamy is "inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships" on a pair of decisions from the Nineteenth Century!!!

Good heavens, did these justices even read this decision? How hard would it be for someone with an ounce of intelligence to trot out a "modern" study, say, from 1901, to argue that polygamy is consistent with "mutually supportive and healthy family relationships?

After all, it's not like there aren't entire regions of the world - and millenia of time - that actually demonstrate that polygamy is perfectly consistent with "mutually supportive and healthy family relationships."

No one can really argue that polygamy doesn't "work" as an institution that protects women and children from the vicissitudes of life while providing social stability.

The problem with polygamy is that it doesn't work for a culture that wants equality of the sexes or an idea of marriage that is something more than a kind of business enterprise, i.e., for a culture that wants the ideal of Christian marriage.

On the other hand, while polygamy has been tested and has been found to be consistent with "mutually supportive and healthy family relationships," when precisely has it been shown that gay marriage isn't "inimical" to "mutually supportive and healthy family relationships." Is there a sociological study of the a two-thousand year old corner of Marin County that proves that gay marriage works that we are not aware of?

The evidence is obviously to the contrary. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of gay couples are not faithful and supportive to each other, but, rather, act as - surprise - unmarried men.

But don't worry about the coming of polygamy; we have a tendentious, illogical, unintentionally droll footnote explaining how polygamy is so very different from gay marriage because a Supreme Court decision from 1870 - and a clutch of other cases decided before or shortly after the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas didn't get the message that the most important constitutional right of all is not the right to free speech about politics, but the constitutional right to play "Nanny and the Professor."

But it's this exercise in fantasy of a footnote that is our "mighty bulwark" against polygamy.

Terrific.

Thanks to Mark Shea for the link.

Labels: Culture Wars, Holding Paper - Secularism

Peter Sean Bradley 10:49 AM

|

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

 

Wipe the smile from Osama's face.

Beer with Demos has a plan.

I'm going to run it past my Rotary club.

Labels: Celebrate goodness, War on Terror

Peter Sean Bradley 9:32 AM

|

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

 

Cats and Dogs Sleeping Together...

Hagee apologizes:

The Texas megachurch pastor whose past comments about the Catholic Church have caused headaches for John McCain for over two months will issue an apology to Catholics later today, according a top Christian conservative.

John Hagee, pastor of San Antonio's Cornerstone Church, will send a letter to Catholic League President William Donahue expressing "deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful."

"After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism," Hagee wrote in a letter running just over two pages.

In a carefully-coordinated plan, Donahue accepted the apology with a statement of his own.

“The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere," Donahue said. "He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology."

The conservative leader who shared the letter said McCain's campaign was not involved at all in encouraging Hagee to apologize.

Donahue has been among Hagee's most outspoken critics and called on McCain to repudiate the pastor soon after Hagee endorsed the Republican in March.

Hagee has drawn fire for describing Catholicism as "a Godless theology of Hate" and, what some have interpreted as, "the Great Whore."

Hoping to knock Mike Huckabee out of the race, McCain secured Hagee's public endorsement in the days before the March 4th Texas primary. But since then, the GOP candidate has been dogged by questions over why he would accept support from somebody who not only has criticized Catholics but also asserted that Hurricane Katrina was part of God's punishment for the decadence of New Orleanians.

McCain has not disavowed Hagee's endorsement, but has said that it was probably a mistake to pursue. A spokesperson for the candidate declined to comment on Hagee's apology.

I thought that Hagee's "Great Whore"/"Woman of Babylon" schtick was more amusing than offensive - it was really over the top, but it is very nice that Hagee might be learning some history and some civility.

Labels: Election 2008, the last acceptable prejudice

Peter Sean Bradley 1:45 PM

|

Monday, May 12, 2008

 

Established Churches in America.

We are doing a "Reformed Church of America" property case, and I just learned that the reason that the Reformed Church of America ("RCA") does not have a "trust clause" in its "Book of Church Order" seems to arise from the fact that the RCA, which derived from the Dutch Reformed Church, may have been one of the "established churches" of New York state.

Obviously, the Dutch Reformed Church was the established church of old "New Amsterdam." When the English won "New York," England agreed to respect Dutch Reformed property and recognize Dutch Reformed "discipline." The legal relationship of the RCA was up for discussion with the American Revolution when the Anglican establishment was severed from England, and it seems that RCA legal rights were written into the new New York constitution.

I need to find that constitutional provision.

Poking around, I found this interesting site on the established churches after the Revolutionary War. It is amazing how accepted the idea of established churches were in Revolutionary America, and how long they lasted - at least, de jure - after the Revolution.

Here is a nice graphic on the point:



For example, the 1775 North Carolina constitution had the following provision, which was in effect until the 1877 Constitution was adopted:

Article XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Not to be outdone, New Hampshire had this provision in its Constitution from 1784 to 1877:

Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...

House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...

President. [H]e shall be of the Protestant religion."

Maryland ended its requirement that elected officials had to be Christian in 1867. There is this interesting provision from the 1776 Constitution:

leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county: but the churches, chapels, globes, and all other property now belonging to the church of England, ought to remain to the church of England forever...

I wonder if the reluctance of the American Revolutionary governments to seize the property of the established churches is one of the many distinguishing marks between the American and other revolutions?

Labels: Alt-Hist, Law, Religion and Society

Peter Sean Bradley 1:35 PM

|

 

Maxims of Equity

"A false promise can as easily, perhaps more easily, be implied from conduct as from language; indeed, as the well-worn maxim goes, actions speak louder than words." (Diamond Woodworks, Inc. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1046.)

Pretty obvious, but worth having it where I can find.

Labels: Law

Peter Sean Bradley 1:17 PM

|